If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles

Jyotirmaya Sharma’s reading of Vivekananda is partial and incomplete (Dharma for the State?, Jan 21). There are a number of links he has left out in his eagerness to poke flaws in his teachings. Firstly, it’s puzzling why Sharma thinks Swamiji saw Christianity and Islam as ‘sects’, being someone who said, “I think and dream of an India with an Islamic body and Vedantic soul.” Secondly, Sharma should know that in Indology, ‘dharma’ is not religion but ‘conduct’, one determined by behaviour and nothing else. Sharma has really tried to enter a zone unknown to him, he is neither an expert on it nor passionate about it.

Nirmalya Mukherjee, Calcutta

Sri Ramakrishna had said: “The pundits are like vultures; their minds soar high, but their sights are focused on charnel pits looking for rotten carcasses”. Sharma has constructed a false theory by quoting out of context, distorting meanings and coming up with bizarre interpretations of innocuous statements. Swamiji described Islam and Christianity as sects not derisively, but to distinguish the external practices of a faith from true religion, which he said was a manifestation of divinity. He also believed that all faiths were valid paths that led to the same transcendental reality. Sri Ramakrishna had come to the same realisation. Unlike many teachers, Vivekananda is easy to understand. By distorting his message, Sharma is looking to serve a political purpose.

Devashis Mukherjee, Gurgaon

We either create impossibly high pedestals for our heroes, or horribly vilify our adversaries. Moreover, we love to hate people who try to show our icons as mere mortals, with all too human indiscretions. It has happened with recent books on Gandhi, and it will now happen to Jyotirmaya.

Meraj Uddin Khan, Lucknow

Funnily, the subtitle under the photo of the book cover reads ‘Cosmic Love and Human Empathy’, yet the photo clearly shows it to be ‘Cosmic Love and Human Apathy’! Sabotage by the swami’s right-wing fan?

Ajit Hegde, Bangalore

Sharma says Vivekananda was casteist. Wrong. In his lecture ‘The Future of India’, published in Lectures from Colombo to Almora, he says: “The days of exclusive privileges and exclusive claims are gone, gone forever from the soil of India.... The solution is not by bringing down the higher caste, but by raising the lower up to the level of the higher.”

Sharmila Lal, Delhi

Vivekananda talked about Brahminhood and Shudrahood as qualities within the self, not as Jyotirmaya Sharma claims to understand it.

Aditya Raghavan, Bangalore

It’ll only be a matter of time before Jyotirmaya is offered a position in the divinity or political science department of a US university. As a professor in the US told me, the modern academic is all about strategy and working towards where the lobbies are the strongest in the media and in terms of funding. JS is on his way, with a one-way ticket to US universities.

Gajanan, Sydney

“Those to whom religion is a trade are forced to become narrow and mischievous by their introduction into religion the competitive, fighting and selfish methods of the world.” So said Swamiji in a letter to Dharmapala from the US in 1894.

Subrah Katakam, Chennai

Anyone who has depth in reading will realise that Vivekananda was indeed a Hindu supremacist and casteist, whose teachings had little resemblance to the teaching of greats like Ramakrishna Paramhansa. He upheld the Manusmriti, which truly great Hindu philosophers never championed.

Deepak, US

The article is simply atrocious, and a classic example of a pea-brained person trying to assess a great personality.

Vaibhav Srivastava, Calcutta

A majority of Islamic nations won’t allow a Hindu temple; those which do demolish them at a whim. Put that in the context of a Hindu majority country in which a great Hindu philosopher gets a bad name for calling Islam a ‘sect’!

Vikram Rathore, New York

Jyotirmaya Sharma reveals himself to be a talentless hack whose only claim to fame are his outrageous claims.

Kiran, Grenoble

I have a serious problem with Jyotirmaya Sharma and not because I think he belongs to this or that side of the ideological spectrum. I am a student of philosophy and strongly believe he has set himself a task bigger than he’s capable of accomplishing. Does he even know the epistemology behind the various words/phrases of different philosophers-scholars? He seems to transpose the sociological definitions of different words to interpret Vivekananda’s teachings. Certainly an intellectual understanding of the sayings of a monk or mystic is shallow without knowing what metaphysics, mysticism, philosophy and religious experience is like. The very fact that Sharma accepts Ramakrishna and rejects Vivekananda makes his scholarship suspect.

Viswanath V., Kurnool, AP

The author should be commended for his painstaking and scholarly work as well as the courage to write such a book in the current Indian environment. Instead of the irrational attacks, let’s see if anybody can provide reasoned evidence that any of Vivekananda’s quotes have been misrepresented.

H.M. Siddhanti, Richmond

Despite all the dissent and criticism, Swami Vivekananda will remain an icon for moderate Hindus.

G. Anuplal, Bangalore

Vivekananda was part of a 19th-century reform movement that focused on monism and the context of the time. And that is a crime in the eyes of 21st century political scientists like Jyotirmaya Sharma!

Priya Madhavan, Rochester

Men like Sharma are intellectual terrorists who cause immeasurable damage to a people’s culture by killing its soul.

Shyam Sarvodey, Mysore

Sharma should read Swami Saradananda’s The Great Master where he discusses the Master’s Islamic sadhana. He quotes Ramakrishna as saying that in the absence of unity at the Vedantic level, there is little in common between Hindus and Muslims. Where then is the contradiction between him and Vivekananda?

It’s the chronic Indian habit of sentimentalising our past and deifying figures from the past that is to blame for the misinterpretation of Swami Vivekananda. We are blind to the factual realities of such personages. And who wants to hear his gods criticised? I thank Jyotirmaya Sharma (Dharma for the State?, Jan 21) for providing a fresh perspective on the Swami in his book excerpted by Outlook.

Sarah Hafeez, Calcutta

Subverting anything that brings solace to some and does not harm others—in Jyotirmaya Sharma’s case, the great work of Swami Vivekananda—seems futile, unless done as an academic exercise, in which case it should be published in an academic journal, and not a popular format like this.

In the excerpt from his book on Swami Vivekananda (Dharma for the State, Jan 21), Jyotirmaya Sharma says that the vast majority of people who believe Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa is a catholic Hindu seer are wrong; that he really wasn’t so broad-minded after all; and that it is Swami Vivekananda’s distortion that gives his guru universal appeal. Sharma then goes into long passages which do not adva–nce his claim but are bluntly dismissive of Swami Vivekananda for calling Christianity, Islam and other religions sects under a universal religion called Vedanta. Sharma also has some aversion to the use of the terms ‘Sanatana Dha­rma’, ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Vedanta’. Let me point out that Swami Vivekananda seldom used the term ‘Sanatana Dharma’, often used the term ‘Hindu/Hinduism’ and even more often used the non-equivalent term ‘Vedanta’. When he says all sects are within Vedanta, he doesn’t mean that Christianity, Islam etc are within Hinduism; he means they are within the universal religion which also subsumes what is commonly called Hinduism, with its many sects such as Vaishnavism etc. If anyone says the author is indulging himself by writing shoddy, meandering passages glued together by fuzzy logic under a sensational headline, he would not be off-target.

Swami Sampurnananda, Thiruvananthapuram

Had Sharma only understood the true meaning and spirit of Swamiji’s speeches, he would not have ventured to write his 300-page book.

(1) Liberal and progressive Muslims have for a long time been critical of Maulana Maududi for his supremacist and exclusivist views. Now Jyotirmaya Sharma asserts that Swami Vivekananda was a supremacist and an exclusivist too. Vivekananda saw Hinduism to be the universal religion but was willing to grant "sect" status to Christianity and Islam. Today we see this theme pervading Praveen Togadia's tirades against Christianity and Islam, although Togadia's speeches are much more despicable and hateful than Vivekananda's writings. An egalitarian approach seeing religions as being co-equal has been adopted only by a few enlightened religious leaders. However Vivekanada will always be held in high regard for his erudite and accessible Vedantic elucidations.

(2) >> Only morons conclude that Vedantic unity of religions makes him a Hindu supremacist. ((DC).

Mr. Sharma says that Vivekananda "considered only Hinduism to be worthy of the epithet ‘religion’ and thought of Islam and Christianity to be merely sects." That may qualify him as a supremacist, don't you think?

Both posts should be seen in the context of the discussion of Sharma's article and my response to another poster. Only the most malicious smearer would cite them to show me as detracting from Vivekananda's greatness considering the fact that I have written several times praising him.

"nterestingly, the resident jehadi himself had compared Vivekananda to Maududi and Togadia"

I am sure you do not expect logic or consistency from Anwaar. He rarely thinks thro' any issue and simply repeats talking points.

That aside, the concern of a communist like Panikkar over Vivekananda is very touching-given the way his party had trashed him over the years. It is only RSS that had made him and people like him see the light.

They had no compunctions in shamelessly deriding Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, not to mention Ramakrishna society earlier. But now, when Sanghis are saying something nice about them, they want to treat them as "apne baap ka maal".

its interesting to see what a magazine edited by a porno mag editor has to offer about Swami Vivekananda ,

all foolish and distorted view , author has not even read Vivekananda , he was not castiest at all , and never said about Brahmin supremacy ,read his books fool , he condemns caste as "Dance of Devil " but he was not an arm chaired intellectual like author , only ranting nonsense , but wanted to bring real change , after so many years of indepedance has Secular system eradicated caste ? it has only strengthened it , and the Paragraph quoted about Sanatana dharma is indeed by SriRamkrishna , it has nothing to do with Vivekananda , book was not written by him , so how author can say "it sounds like Vivekananda " author is a fool really , what he wants to proove by saying "it sounds like Vivekananda" rather it prooves his understanding of Sri Ramkrishna is not clear ,

Typical flaw finding on biased models .... hahaha .... still , one should attempt such things .... Truth unless achieved in totality is an evolution .... The photographer for the column has done morbid injustice by orchestrating the real agenda by mistake. Rise of a blend of center rightist , progressive and appealing icon is indigestable for India media. Who have learnt nothing more than playing as trump cards in hands of comfortist forces.... Enjoyed reading and the mountainous efforts the writer has done in finding simpler things....

The author claims to the effect that - Sri Ramakrishna is popularly acclaimed for his catholicity. The people are wrong. Ramakrishna is not of such broad minded nature. Swami Vivekananda had distorted Ramakrishna's real nature and artificially made Ramakrishna appear as possessing a Universal nature.

Then he goes into a long passages which doesn't advance any argument to support his claim but wants to dismiss Vivekananda because according to him Vivekananda calls Christianity Islam and other religions as sects and that they are all included in one Universal Religion which is Vedanta.

There is no logic in the author's or reviewer's article. He has some aversion to the usage of the terms 'Sanathana Dharma', 'Hinduism' and 'Vedanta'. Vivekananda seldom used the word 'Sanathana Dharma', often used the word 'Hindu' and much more often used the word 'Vedanta'. When Vivekananda implies that all sects are within Vedanta he doesn't say that Christianity, etc. are within Hinduism but he means they are within the Universal Religion which also consists of many sects within what is commonly called Hinduism, like Vaishnavism, Saktham, etc. When Vivekananda uses the word 'Veda' he means Spiritual Truths which are found in Upanishads or Bible or Koran or any other place or person.

Then comes the pathetic piece of Caste about which I would like to comment later.

If anybody says that the author or the reviewer is just indulging in some shoddy meandering dumb passages with some fuzzy logic which does a sorry job of clininging to a sensational headline, I suppose he would not be off his mark.

Had Jyotirmoy Sharma read only Swamiji's speeches at the various sessions of parliament of religions in 1893 carefully and realised its meaning he would not have ventured into his 300 page futile and nonsensical exercise.

Had Jyotirmoy Sharma read Swamiji's speeches at various sessions of the parliament of religion 1893 carefully and realised the meanings he would not have ventured into this 300 pages futile, nonsensical exercise.

Anyway whether rightly or wrongly, Vivekanand saw Hinduism as the name given by some to Universalism.

The way life has many shades, twists and turns, the way same person may display contrasting behaviour in similar situations, the way you cannot pinpoint any person as being permanently good or irredeamably evil, the way life forces us to challange our deepest beliefs and change them, the way life shows how contradictions coexist, the way life presents us situations and answers which may be given different interpretations by different viewers..in his view Hinduism was this way (manner of, passage of, meaning of..) of LIFE and by no means this could be called Religion (as we usually use the term as being representatives of a set of beliefs and do's and dont's).

However, Vivekanand saw in this way of LIFE and it's understanding, the true DHARMA,

In his opinion others showing WAY of Life as being only particular chanelised WAY somehow missed out on Universalism.

If you still consider this supremacist, you are welcome to your belief.

The question of supremacism arises because of the claim that only Hinduism can be called a religion and other religions are just sects. Vivekananda's writings were profuse and one can detect both presence and absence of supremacism in them.

Laboured and hair-splitting analysis of Mr Jyotirmaya Sharma of the words and thoughts of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, in order to determine whether they were secular, communal or fundamentalist makes one question the seriousness, objectivity and purpose of his research. By calling the Swami a fundamentalist, Mr. Sharma has only exposed his flawed understanding of two leading spiritual Masters to public scrutiny.
Before using political cliché such as ‘fundamentalist,’ Mr. Sharma ought to have taken the trouble of gauging the inner thoughts of the Vedanta that the Swami strived to spread to the world both for spiritual fulfillment and material advancement. In the first place, there was nothing religious about the Vedanta. In the Swami’s own words: “The old religions said that he was an atheist who did not believe in God. The new religion says that he is the atheist who does not believe in himself.” (Vide The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, vol.2 - lecture on Practical Vedanta delivered in London on 10th November, 1896).
Second, in a series of lecture on practical Vedanta, delivered in London from 10th November to 18th November, 1896, the Swami delineated the essence of the Vedanta as follows: a) “the Vedanta preaches the ideal”; b) “it recognizes no sin, it only recognizes error. And the greatest error, says the Vedanta, is to say that you are weak, that you are a sinner….” c) “Everything that makes for oneness is truth. Love is truth, and hatred is false, because hatred makes for multiplicity ….it separates and destroys.” d) “I shall call you religious from the day you begin to see God in men and women, and then you will understand what is meant by turning the left cheek to the man who strikes you on the right”. e) “it is better that mankind should become atheist by following reason than blindly believe in two hundred millions of gods on the authority of anybody”. f) “All truth is eternal. Truth is no body’s property; no race, no individual can lay any exclusive claim to it. Truth is the nature of all souls.”
From the above Vedantic messages of the Swami, it is impossible to trace a shred of communalism or fundamentalism in him. However, by adopting a method of linear and out of context interpretation of some passages randomly lifted from the record of the Swami’s speeches and writings Mr. Sharma has condemned Swami Vivekananda’s concept of Hinduism as ‘politically charged’. His above condemnation is anachronistic, superficial and unscholarly, if not plain politics.
Let us now highlight certain obvious mistakes committed by Mr. Sharma while reflecting on the spiritual depth of Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda from some of their sayings or writings.
The first mistake of the author is to attribute catholicity to Sri Ramakrishna purportedly for reason of his liberal outlook, thereby suggesting that he, like a Roman Catholic, was a conformist, which he certainly was not. The author also overlooked the fact that Sri Ramakrishna’s attainment of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (described as the highest level of consciousness in Hindu spiritual and philosophical texts like the Gita) about two decades before the Swami came in his contact, would surely put him on a much higher pedestal, if not the highest, in spiritual hierarchy than the catholicity of a conformist priest would ordinarily deserve. Besides, his non-conformist pursuit of other religions, notably Islam and Christianity, in 1865-66 (when the Swami was barely 2-3 years old) led him to the same level of consciousness earlier attained by him, and thereby to the finding that all religions lead to the same goal. The above realization certainly travels beyond the precinct of any particular religion. It was patently uncharitable on the part of Mr. Sharma to describe such a person as a ‘religious ecstatic’ allegedly remoulded by the Swami into a ‘religious eclectic’. Sri Ramakrishna was neither. As a matter of fact, he fits into the description of the realized soul whose need for the Vedas is like one’s need for a well when it is swamped by flood (refer verse 46, chapter 2, Gita).
Second, Mr. Sharma made a serious mistake in interpreting the following words of Sri Ramakrishna, spoken on October 20, 1884, after witnessing celebration of Annakuta Puja by the Marwaris of the Burrabazar: “The Hindu religion alone is the Sanatana Dharma. The various creeds you hear of nowadays have come into existence through the will of God and will disappear again through His will. They will not last forever. Therefore I say, ‘I bow down at the feet of even the modern devotees.’ The Hindu religion has always existed and will always exist.” To Mr. Sharma, the above instance exemplified distinct Hindu identity of Sri Ramakrishna, which though was otherwise absent in Kathamrita. In Mr. Sharma’s understanding, ‘the various creeds’ referred to by Sri Ramakrishna may have meant various other religions such as Christianity and Islam while it would stand to reason to infer that the words “various creeds” in juxtaposition of the words ‘nowadays’ and ‘modern devotees’ denoted newly created Hindu sects like ‘Brahmo Samaj’ which was against idol worship.
Third, Mr. Sharma accused the Swami of distorting Sri Ramakrishna’s concept of equality of all religions to claim that he had learnt it from his master that all religions in the world were phases of one eternal religion. His obvious insinuation is that according to the Swami, Hinduism alone was that eternal religion or Sanatana dharma and all other religions like Buddhism, Christianity and Islam were mere phases of Hinduism. The above allegation is totally unfounded, convoluted and a result of mis-interpretation of his lectures in New York and England in 1896. What the Swami actually said is cited below:
“The second idea that I learnt from my Master, and which is perhaps the most vital, is the wonderful truth that the religions of the world are not contradictory or antagonistic. They are but various phases of one eternal religion. That one eternal religion is applied to different planes of existence, is applied to the opinions of various minds and various races. There never was my religion or yours, my national religion or your national religion; there never existed many religions, there is only the one. One infinite religion existed all through eternity and will ever exist, and this religion is expressing itself in various countries in various ways. Therefore, we must respect all religions and we must try to accept them all as far as we can.”(refer ‘My Master’ in vol 4 of the Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda)
It must be remembered that the above lecture was addressed to foreign audience and hence the words: “as far as we can”. The Swami obviously made it sound more like an appeal rather than a command to his audience, predominantly Christian. On a careful reading of the above extract from his speech, it is impossible to find any insinuation of Hindu supremacy and attempt to relegate other religions vis-à-vis Hinduism.
Fourth, Mr. Sharma has also alleged that the Swami reduced other religions, barring Hinduism, to a sect only, thus denying them a separate, exclusive identity. This is yet another misconception, if not a deliberate dis-information. To the Swami, as also his Master, “Religion consists in realization” (ref. ‘My Master’ in vol 4 of the Complete Works). This being the religion in its ideal form, notably the oneness of the Vedanta that proclaimed Tat Tvam Asi (Thou art That), surely no single external and ritualistic religion, be it Hinduism, Christianity or Islam, can claim exclusivity. In that sense, every external religion, Hinduism included, can only be considered as a sect. However, when the Swami has dwelt upon religions in their external form, he has referred to various sects within each religion including Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.
Fifth, Mr. Sharma has discovered that the Swami’s fondness for caste system was ‘total and not entirely innocent’. He has selectively quoted from the Swami’s writings in support of his above finding. The fact of the matter is that the Swami had contempt for the hereditary caste system which, according to him, caused the downfall of India. He, however, was in favour of reviving the concept of Jati Dharma i.e. the system of determining caste by qualitative distinction (refer ‘The East and the West’ in vol.5 of the Complete Works). By following this process, a man with Sattvik qualities ought to be considered as a Brahmin. He has talked of primacy of the Brahmin as because the soul of the Hindu lies in spiritual liberation – Mukti. If the soul of the Hindu was found to be in political independence, like in the case of the French, or in the ‘give and take’ policy like in the case of the British, primacy would have been enjoyed by the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas, respectively. The Hindu survived the foreign rule of several centuries as because its soul that lay in spiritual liberation could not be destroyed by external forces. This in short was the contention of the Swami. There is nothing in his writing to even remotely suggest that he was fond of the existing caste system, as is alleged by Mr. Sharma.
It is often said, unless you understand the ignorance of a person, you are ignorant of his understanding. Mr. Sharma is sincerely advised to make his home work adequately before he ventures to interpret the thoughts of spiritual Titans like Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda.
Asish Kumar Raha
[The writer is a M.A.(Gold Medalist in History) & LLB from Calcutta University & a former Member, Central Board of Excise & Customs]

That is what I'm saying. The author does not even bother to produce Vivekananda's statement to this effect, and yet goes on to say that he was a Hindu supremacist. And like his loyal henchman, you've come to his rescue by adding the qualifier "if".

This is not about Hinduism. It is about Vivekananda. The author says that if Vivekananda believed that Hinduism alone is worthy of being called a religion, and that Christianity and Islam are just sects, then that is supremacism.

So you mean to say that saying that Hinduism has the 'belief' that GOD's grace is Universal-whether you belive in Him or not, whether you live a life as per His so called Code or not is saying that Hinduism is Supremacist?

>> Should we interpret your comment to be asking Hindus to stop saying what they believe is their 'lived truth'?

If you are a supremacist, admit you are a supremacist. Don't pretend to be something that you are not. If you are a reformist and drop your supremacism, admit that you have reformed. Both Hindus and Muslims should keep themselves open to reforms.

I agree with you that there is more room for having different view points within Hinduism than in book based abrahamic religions. You don't have to confirm to everything in Hinduism. Where as confirming is lot more important in abrahamic religions. I like that aspect of Hinduism. But the problem is, Whether you confirm or don't confirm, your relative standing in the eyes of religion and religio-social status is a function of your birth. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, root cause of all evil in Hinduism is varna system.

Everyone can see that caste as a social institution has lost its primacy. No matter what psedo-secularists or Hindu champs think, free market capitalism has its own logic and momentum. It is like a forest fire and it is going to shake the caste system to its core.

Are you suggesting that since there will and are always people who are aggressively demanding 'separate' recognition and will take offence and impute meanings no matter how you say something (Just as JS has written about Vivekanand and for that matter many have commented about and questioned sayings of Mohammad Saheb and Jesus and others).
Should we interpret your comment to be asking Hindus to stop saying what they believe is their 'lived truth'? Hindus should accept that what they have been saying till now is actually their false belief and delusion?
That they should go ahead and stop believing in their 'fancy ideal' and accept the worldly reality that they are just another political community like Muslims and Christians etc. and make everybody’s life so much easier?

You can call it whatever you want - but you do not know the basics of the subjects you wanted to argue about, and that cannot be my mistake. Of course, that is not your mistake alone - we are being told that if it comes to Hindu society anybody is free to say anything without know anything, and very few are really caring to know what the reality is before preaching from a high pedastal and low awareness.

"If Hinduism is not even a religion why categorize Sikhs, Buddhists religion as Hinduism. Why can not they have a seperate category called civilization and put their religion as Sikhism / Buddhism / etc.. "

Because they are not separate civilizational entities but only separate religions. You need to understand the overall structure of this society and state before British, to be able to understand the confusions that exist today.

Bauddha, Jaina, Sikh etc are religions, just like other religions that emerged in this land. They are nevertheless part of the Hindu *civilization* - there is absolutely no contradition or confusion in this. As I mentioned much earlier, you just need to understand the difference between a society, civilization, religion.

I do agree there are social evils plaguing hindu culture but that doesnt take away the inherent self corrective mechanisms at place in the Dharmic faiths( as you dont seem to understand the semantics of Hinduism) that is virtually absent in the abrahamic faiths... infact any introspection in the judeochristioislamic tradition amounts to herasy..... Dharmic faiths( read Vaishnavism,shaivism, shaktism,jainism,budhism,sikhism, veerashaivism,Arya samajists, vedantists.... even atheistic schools of thought) have a concept of swadharma which keeps them alive and kicking.... The Dharmic faiths may have finer differnces but are fundamentally linked with their basic tenets if u conduct a philosophic polemic on them... Social evils need to be rooted out but .... when you clean your house if its dirty.... do you just throw the dirt or you jettison your house?

"are you aware that the word Hindu does not refer to a particular religion as per constitution but to the native *civilization* of this country? Are you aware that there is no religion called Hinduism and that religion and civilizational/social lives had always been orthogonal in this land?"

If Hinduism is not even a religion why categorize Sikhs, Buddhists religion as Hinduism. Why can not they have a seperate category called civilization and put their religion as Sikhism / Buddhism / etc.. And their civilization as Hinduism? Why have all this bullshit contradictions.

Your logic goes something like this " Hinduism is not a religion. But Buddhists, sikhs and jains belong to Hindu religion. But again Hinduism is not a religion but vivekananda has proved that Hinduism is the greatest religion. Again what....Hinduism is not a religion". This is the kind of logic only a great Hindu "intellectual" like you can understand and appreciate.

Can you please elaborate about soul of Indian culture? Indian culture is all about casteism, segregation and oppression based on culture, arranged marriages with dowry, before that bridal sellings, before that sati and prohibiting widows from re-marriage and not even allowing them to have a normal life, prohibiting women from having property right, prohibiting majority of population from getting education, condemning a sizable chunk of population into semi slavery as untouchables, depriving the whole population from having any self-respect. When everybodys greatness is solely determined by their birth, why anybody should strive to achieve greatness or excel in anything. If anybody asks why some people have to work their ass off while only few get to enjoy without ever doing any real work then the answer is ready in the name of karma siddanth. Or it is your fate. This kind of ideology and social structure produces the weakest society. No wonder India is under foreign rule for over thousand years.

You win the shouting competition. No matter what anybody says your response is shouting gibberish louder and longer just the way brahmins recite Vedas without ever understanding a word what it means. I have to say that you got good training. For most of the participants of this forum, it is not about thinking or learning or understanding anything. It is just a "us versus them" ffight and a shouting competition. The inferiority complex among Hindus and especially among self appointed custodians of Hinduism is so pervasive that they can not handle slightest criticism.

Historically every major religion has screwed up in a big way including Hinduism. At least some religions took course correction measures and achieved self reform so that they sound less stupid and more relevant in current time and age. Instead of taking a hard look at the current state of Hinduism and getting rid of all the crap and preserve / enhance the good things in it, people are trying to defend every bit of it including the worst elements. This is a recipe for disaster. Again what else one can expect from a reactionary conservative lunatic fringe.

"Did it ever occur to you why state should categorize people into something against their will. How do you feel if some country categorizes as christian? Hypothetically if USA had a definition of Christian as everybody who lives in USA and who is not Jew or Muslim. How would you like it?"

Are you aware that the word Hindu does not refer to a particular religion as per constitution but to the native *civilization* of this country? Are you aware that there is no religion called Hinduism and that religion and civilizational/social lives had always been orthogonal in this land? Are you aware that Hindu marriage act has nothing religious about it and applies to all non-abrahamic peoples of this country - not because Buddhists call themselve Hindus but because they have historically always been abiding by the same state laws that every other tradition also followed? The whole problem is not with what religion who belongs to, but the non-uniform state treatment of the followers of native vs invading traditions.

A good point but in bad context. Swamy Vivekananda's philosophy of moral and spiritual reconstruction and social activism is especially relevant today, given the present level of corruption, deterioration of morality in the society, and rise of directionlessness and violent tendencies in youth. Hence this is not an acceptable time to deconstruct teachers like Vivekananda, it is time to call for an emulation of their ideals.

Again over simplification. Average "lower" caste Hindu does not implement untouchability just because brahmins teach or because it is "sanctioned" in a scripture that nobody ever studied. There is something called "social inertia" to sustain existing practice, which is good for retaining social customs. And when there are negative practices, the same intertia will be more in illiterate masses and less in (traditionally) educated people - hence the educated people try to bring awareness to remove the outdated practices from time to time. This is a constant reality in this society, since no single practice is eternally acceptable in time.

The fact as I mentioned, is that there is a time and condition that causes a practice to rise, and a way the practice fades out with change of that condition. It happened with many, many practices in the past and present. "scripture" does not say anything in absolute terms, it merely has guidelines for evolving practices as per times and situations. So say that Hindus do so and so because some text says is to ignore the way Hindu society and its knowledge and practices evolve.

As I said, it is one of those practices that are fast declining - and correctly so. There are several regions where it is present, and several regions where active and sane minds have worked and got over it. Even those people go by the scriptures. You should read the life of scholar-reformer-seer like Vasistha Ganapati Muni who had not only pursued traditional scholarship and a great level of sadhana but also worked actively in overcoming practices like untouchability. That he achieved not through speeches but through amity between communities and an equal treatment - for his work, the Adi Hindu samaj, a "dalit" community conferred the title "muni" on him - how many even know about such people? And how many have tried to emulate him after seeing the results he achieved? He happens to be a scholar who based his writings on the same scriptures - this just means to say that scripture is no writing on the wall but a living text that needs to be understood and emulated as per times.

"Here you are talking change but the first step towards change is accepting the reality which you can not do because of your closed racist mindset."

What you are calling "reality" is not reality - it is itself a narrow, skewed interpretation of the rather complex reality. Your statements are static, point-in-time descriptions of some areas and some sections of the society. They do not show any understanding of past, present and future. And hence I am afraid your adjectives suit you better than me.

" The Hindu Marriage act of 1955 offers the definition of a legal hindu. That should be good enough for all practical purposes.

“(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
“(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
“(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.2"

The fact that you think this definition is good enough shows your stupidity. Did it ever occur to you why state should categorize people into something against their will. How do you feel if some country categorizes as christian? Hypothetically if USA had a definition of Christian as everybody who lives in USA and who is not Jew or Muslim. How would you like it?

" Untouchability is never "preached" - it is *practiced*. And for it to go, your line of argument is not gonna work. You need to know who all are working to improve living conditions of the untouchable communities, in what areas has it been formally agreed between communities that they would not practice it any more, how the change is coming, and how it will come. Any practice in any society has a life cycle, its temporal reasons to rise and fall. For practices to change, in a society as huge and complex as ours, one needs to get his hands dirty, develop the understanding over years and *contribute* towards changing things. Hate mongering and armchair abuse is only going to increase bad blood between communities."

Untouchability is sanctioned by Hindu scripture, actively preached by Hindu priests / brahmins, and widely practised by Hindu followers. What do you mean by my line of argument is not going to work? You just say things which you can not substantiate with any evidence or supporting argument. Here you are talking change but the first step towards change is accepting the reality which you can not do because of your closed racist mindset.

I am merely stating a fact when I call you moron. You can check the meaning. I don't have to abuse you. I see people like you all the time and all I feel is pity. They read a lot but they don't learn anything. They can not reason because their mind is closed. They can not see the things that are in plain sight because they are so blinded by their faith, beliefs and pride. But there is hope for everybody.

It is in our genes. We either create sky pedestals for our heroes or we we bury our adversaries to three earths down. Moreover, we love to hate those who try to show that our heroes were after all mere mortals. Above all; we keep boasting of our 'temperance and tolerance''. We still have to learn to disagree without being disagreeable.

When your cognitive abilities fail you, get down to abusing, right? Your sentences show you are a know-nothing and why I tried to give you clarity, you turn out to be unworthy of it. Still, here is my last attempt.

"Read my sentence again moron. You don't even understand an English sentence properly. Karma theory explains and rationalizes crap and then some moron like you will invoke it to justify horrible things happen to innocent people."

Really? Did you read my response? Are you aware of the difference between rationalizing, justifying, explaining and establishing causation? If not, do some learning.

"You are wrong again. Hindu code may or may not punish offenders depending upon the caste of the rape victim and offenders caste."

What do you know of Hindu legal code to call me wrong?

"Don't over think. Think simple."

Well you learn some thinking in the first place.

"Look at your answer. You can not even answer a simple question without tying yourself up in knots. I know why you have to beat around the bush. Hinduism does not have a concept of equality and in fact it justifies all sorts of descrimination."

My answer is comprehensible for someone with reasonable cognitive abilities, and a basic understanding of what *essential* equality is, what *phenomenal* equality is, and what is the fundamental difference between oriental and occidental morality theories. That you are an ignoramus is no mistake of mine, and that you still seek to abuse to cover up for your ignorance is no mistake of mine.

"If everybeing is divine then why some divine beings are untouchable?"

Why do you ask questions for things you must be knowing by doing your homework? This is an elementary "contradiction" and if you have not resolved it yourself, I wonder what gives you the audacity to heap abuse on society and people.

"So you can say that every being divine and at the sametime preaches untouchability as well. "

Untouchability is never "preached" - it is *practiced*. And for it to go, your line of argument is not gonna work. You need to know who all are working to improve living conditions of the untouchable communities, in what areas has it been formally agreed between communities that they would not practice it any more, how the change is coming, and how it will come. Any practice in any society has a life cycle, its temporal reasons to rise and fall. For practices to change, in a society as huge and complex as ours, one needs to get his hands dirty, develop the understanding over years and *contribute* towards changing things. Hate mongering and armchair abuse is only going to increase bad blood between communities.

"Equality in modern sense, similar to many other modern concepts like Kantian morality and secularism, is only a good first step - and in societies where it evolved and for their conditions that was probably the best for the times. I do not believe it really goes to the root of the issues around discrimination or equality. It is a separate subject, and requires a much more detailed discussion."

Look at your answer. You can not even answer a simple question without tying yourself up in knots. I know why you have to beat around the bush. Hinduism does not have a concept of equality and in fact it justifies all sorts of descrimination.

"In my view Hinduism does not support the concept of egalitarianism either in letter or in spirit or in practice. But I would like to hear your views"

"In principle, yes - to treat every being as equally divine is what Hinduism teaches."

If everybeing is divine then why some divine beings are untouchable?

Every religion has tons of contradictions and loaded with crap. On one hand it says something and on other hand it says exact opposite. So you can say that every being divine and at the sametime preaches untouchability as well. The key question is when a religion preaches two opposite things which one of the two things is widely practised. Answer: Indian Hindu society is most segregated in the world. It is not the most violent and not most cruel one. There are other societies more violent and more cruel but Hindu society is most segregated.

"More than anything the way karma siddhanth is invoked to justify all sorts of horrible things in life is beyond words."

You have used a wrong word - "justify". Karma siddhanta *explains* causation of experiences, and does not justify or evaluate anything. It is the theoretical framework.

Read my sentence again moron. You don't even understand an English sentence properly. Karma theory explains and rationalizes crap and then some moron like you will invoke it to justify horrible things happen to innocent people.

"This however does not mean that actions are not morally or legally judged, correct? So no matter how you explain the Delhi rape case from karma viewpoint, the Hindu legal code would still have demanded that all the six offenders be executed."

You are wrong again. Hindu code may or may not punish offenders depending upon the caste of the rape victim and offenders caste. I can not believe that people like you still exist not somewhere in some bharatpur but educated and have seen the world enough.

Just because the Sky is higher than the Earth or Oceans; it does not become "A Supremacist". Hinduism and Vedas seek and propagate the good and beneficial of the whole universe (without distinguishing between muslim, christian, tribals, fishes or animals). Please note there is not a single word called "Hindu" in the Vedas. Hinduism is not a primitive tribal religion that says magnificient things like "only people following it will reach heaven and the other infidels and kaffirs will go to dark hells" Most (may be not all) fundamentalist Hindus, even kings like Shivaji treated other religions and their places of worship with respect. Comparatively, even in the "modern" "developed" 20th century Hindus have been openly decimated, destroyed and raped in our neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh or even in Kashmir (places where the "Religion of Peace" reigns), with the media turning a blind eye. From around 20% of the population in these regions, Hindus now constitute a persecuted minority of 1-3%.

Only Vivekananda stood up and openly declared this 120 years ago. As for Caste, Swami Vivekananda was not a brahmin like Jyotirmay Sharma and by supporting caste, he only meant to organize and awaken people along those lines --this was the only possible option to organize during his times.

Congratulations to the Outlook Magazine for throwing shit on not just a great Hindu but a great Indian on his 150th birth anniversary standing on the back of a nobody like- Jyotirmay Sharma. It is a well known fact that Vivekananda was an inspiration for most of our leaders of the freedom struggle –from Mahatma Gandhi to Chandrashekar Azad to Subash Chandra Bose. Observing the injustice and destruction during the British rule, Swami Vivekananda, though a monk, had once declared that he wished to be publicly shot by the British for opposing them, so that a fire of revolution would light up the entire sleeping nation and unite it in the fight for independence. May be the Secular, Elitist Journalists at Outlook even consider our getting political freedom from the British as not such a good idea –since the British were “Secular” thought us English (of course), secularly massacred masses at Jallianwalla Bagh etc., secularly destroyed indigenous weaving and other industries, secularly hung every young man who did not bow to them and did such other things in keeping with their highly inclusive secular civilizational values.

It is not surprising to read such "contrarian" and "opportunistic" articles in Outlook as Hindus do not issue fatwas or behead people. The Outlook culture and that of its founders (who founded and ran the Debonair mag) who made money selling nude photos of exploited young women still shows, despite their transition to a national news magazine.

It is good to read an iconoclastic magazine like "Outlook" --but please do not be iconoclastic just for being iconoclastic.

"Your comparison point was the alleged "anti-Hinduism" of Katju, Sharma and Outlook."

Read again - comparison is of the *illmannered* writing of both, who happen to be *anti-Hindus*.

"Your veracity, not my comprehension, is the problem."

Is what you claim. You did fail to comprehend is what you have been demonstating.

"Hitler too considered his Aryan culture to be under attack"

This is not called factual data - what Hitler "considered" about the situation hardly matters, what matters is whether he was acting in offense or defense. He attempted conquest outside his nation and a holocaust within his country. This is called factual data. Similarly Thackarey - his emergence itself happens after several centuries of constant attack, mass murder, partitions and underprivileging of Hindus in this land. That is called being *factual*.

"That would apply to you too! Vivekananda's output was huge"

Demonstrate where I selectively quoted him and how it lacks consistency. How much Vivekananda preached is something Hindus do not need to be taught by you or media.

>> I compared two *events* belonging to two *persons* in which the same *misconduct* is visible from the media side.

Your comparison point was the alleged "anti-Hinduism" of Katju, Sharma and Outlook.

>> I expected you to be able to comprehend this much, but was wrong.

Your veracity, not my comprehension, is the problem.

>> What Hitler "felt" or what Muslims "feel" is no argument. Factually you have so far offered no argument....

It seems you have run out of steam! Each and every word of what I said is factual. Here it is again for your perusal: "Hitler too considered his Aryan culture to be under attack. Thackerey, who praised Hitler, espoused a Marathi ethnocentricity and campaigned against Gujaratis, Marwaris and South Indians. He incited violence against Muslims during the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots according to the Srikrishna Commission."

>> he (Sharma) does not rely on Vivekananda's statements where it does not suit him.

That would apply to you too! Vivekananda's output was huge.

>> The question is of Vivekananda's consistency in applying the words sect and religion. Reading supremacism into it is monumental ignorance of how these traditions historically evolved.

You use hyperbolic phrases such as "monumental ignorance" as if that would make your argument valid. Defining inter-relationships between religions cannot be done unilaterally.

>> What Swamy Vivekananda did is consistent within his terminology.

I agree. He may not have consciously wanted to establish supremacy. But a 21st century re-analysis of his views may detect supremacist tendencies in his thinking.

" It is shameful of you to speak of Vivekananda and Thackerey in the same breath."

Did I compare their characters? I compared two *events* belonging to two *persons* in which the same *misconduct* is visible from the media side. I expected you to be able to comprehend this much, but was wrong.

And of course, your comparison is *factually* wrong. What Hitler "felt" or what Muslims "feel" is no argument. Factually you have so far offered no argument to support your comparison except your hate.

"Everyone considers his opinion to be fact-based and honest! Your arguments are good. So are Sharma's arguments."

I showed in my first few posts where the factual flaw is - he does not rely on Vivekananda's statements where it does not suit him, which is dishonest.

"Do Buddhists and Jains see themselves as Hindu sects? If not, this would be another example of supremacism."

The question is of Vivekananda's consistency in applying the words sect and religion. Reading supremacism into it is monumental ignorance of how these traditions historically evolved.

"Arbitrary expansion of the definition of the word "religion" and then to include all world's religions as sects under that concept does not in any way enhance our understanding or clarify issues, and is an unnecessary invention that can be seen as being intrusive by Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and others."

What Swamy Vivekananda did is consistent within his terminology. To judge it with your notions today is meaningless.

Do you make a distinction between Hindu philosophy and Hindu religion? The pursuits of Hindu philosophy are the same as the pursuits of European philosophy or Sufi philosophy. On the other hand, as per my understanding, Hindu religion deals with gods, goddesses, avataars, idol worship, karma, birth cycles, castes etc.

>> You are also factually flawed when you make an equivalence between Hindutva leaders like Thackarey and people like Hitler for the simple reason that the former emerged in *defense of a culture under attack* and the latter are *aggressors*.

Hitler too considered his Aryan culture to be under attack. Thackerey, who praised Hitler, espoused a Marathi ethnocentricity and campaigned against Gujaratis, Marwaris and South Indians. He incited violence against Muslims during the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots according to the Srikrishna Commission. It is shameful of you to speak of Vivekananda and Thackerey in the same breath.

>> I said factually flawed and words having *negative connotation*. And that is not a matter of opinion but of honesty.

Everyone considers his opinion to be fact-based and honest! Your arguments are good. So are Sharma's arguments.

>> Is the author aware that Bauddha and Jaina were also called sects by Vivekananda in the larger umbrella of Hindu *society*?

Do Buddhists and Jains see themselves as Hindu sects? If not, this would be another example of supremacism.

>> Islam and Christianity happen to be sects under the larger umbrella of Abrahamic religion.

They are Abrahamic religions, not sects of an "Abrahamic religion". Vivekananda considered them to be sects of Hinduism or the grandiloquent Sanatana Dharma!

>> Jyotirmaya Sharma has no clue what comprises a religion...

Arbitrary expansion of the definition of the word "religion" and then to include all world's religions as sects under that concept does not in any way enhance our understanding or clarify issues, and is an unnecessary invention that can be seen as being intrusive by Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians and others.

How else can Sunday Guardian or MJ Akbar look at it! Being thoroughly superficial and avoiding any kind of methodical thinking is a defining feature of today's public discourse. It is definitely true that there is nothing exclusively Islamic about male prejudice - and as usual the first statement is what is true in most of these arguments. Go next, they beat your commonsense. Asaram Bapu's distorted statements in circulation become the bases for making generalized statements against "Hindu savants". Why does he miss the women-gurus like Mata Amritananda Mayi, Sadhvi Ritambhara? Is sanyasa an organization to make a woman a Sankaracarya? Is he even aware that several vidyas (such as Tara) in Hinduism are officially prescribed *to be learned from a woman*? We cannot write an article here as a comment, but the list is endless. One can look at "thoughts on crime control II" on arisebharat.com for a detailed analysis.

''Only a man becomes a Pope, Shankaracharya, Dalai Lama or Shaikh ul Islam; and only men are in their robe-clad armies. There has been some reform in patches; but the Church of England was unable last year to permit women priests to rise to Bishop. A faith may split into sects. Sunni and Shia may quarrel till eternity over the successor to the Prophet, but it is the men who do the quarrelling.

The high priests of Islam have never had a problem tweaking a religious injunction when they want to. The specific punishment for theft is cutting off the hand. No mullah or politician in India leads a mass agitation to insist that every convicted Muslim thief should have his hand chopped off. But ask for reform in laws to ensure equality for women, and Muslim politicians will suddenly declare that Islam is in danger. It is not Islam which ever has been, or ever will be, in danger; but male hegemony is hopefully under threat.

There is nothing exclusively Islamic about male prejudice. Listen to some Hindu savants rise from their pseudo-yogic perch to preach that women must share the blame for rape. They are joined by a politician like the Samajwadi Party's Abu Azmi; what unites them is not shared faith but shared prejudice. When they blame the West, they are not fearful of geography; they are terrified of modernity. Modernity is not singing English songs and wearing jeans. That is a cartoon view. Modernity is equality, political and social '

I challenge the Hindu champions in this forum to provide the formal definition of hinduism. who is a Hindu? "

The Hindu Marriage act of 1955 offers the definition of a legal hindu. That should be good enough for all practical purposes.

“(a) to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms and developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
“(b) to any person who is a Buddhist, Jain or Sikh by religion, and
“(c) to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion”.2

"How can a phenomenon exist without a name, without a definition? It means it is an afterthought and being concocted."

Why not? Names come after phenomena are perceived and understood. As such no individual requires a name until he finds the need to differentiate himself from the world. Your question goes against the basic workings of nature.

"Do you believe in equality in modern sense?"

Equality in modern sense, similar to many other modern concepts like Kantian morality and secularism, is only a good first step - and in societies where it evolved and for their conditions that was probably the best for the times. I do not believe it really goes to the root of the issues around discrimination or equality. It is a separate subject, and requires a much more detailed discussion.

"In my view Hinduism does not support the concept of egalitarianism either in letter or in spirit or in practice. But I would like to hear your views"

In principle, yes - to treat every being as equally divine is what Hinduism teaches. Hinduism believes in the uniqueness of every identity, individual or collective, and attempts to preserve each of them. And in that attempt, the excessive elements will be controlled - which means the phenomenal equality depends on the merit of your behavior and not on absolute terms.

"More than anything the way karma siddhanth is invoked to justify all sorts of horrible things in life is beyond words."

You have used a wrong word - "justify". Karma siddhanta *explains* causation of experiences, and does not justify or evaluate anything. It is the theoretical framework. This however does not mean that actions are not morally or legally judged, correct? So no matter how you explain the Delhi rape case from karma viewpoint, the Hindu legal code would still have demanded that all the six offenders be executed. The evaluation of right-wrong is entirely different from the subject of establishing causation. And when you talk within the context of causation, there is no scope for evaluating or justifying or ridiculing. And that causation is the bases for understanding the righteous natural order and shaping one's behavior and actions - so that it becomes a guiding principle. To exercise the causation logic for someone's fate is meaningless when you do not know about the personality, experiences through life, overall direction of evolution of the being etc.

" I asked a simple question and I hear lot of commentary about my knowledge / ignorance, my name and my lack of understanding about our great customs and traditions. but what I don;t hear is the answer to the very staright forward question.".....M.K.Chaitanya, post no126

Your question, dear Sir, is a motivated question,not an innocent, bonafide question from a genuine seeker. That is the reason why it does not deserve a straight forward reply. The Indian Constitution has given a political definition, the Supreme Court of India has given a judicial definition, and none of these definitions are one-liners. The Supreme Court has observed that "Unlike other religions or religious creeds Hindu religion not being tied-down to any definite set of philosophic concepts, as such".

All I would like to say is that Hinduism is a quest for the Absolute. The religion itself is amorphous and it cannot be given a specific form. If you are facing an existential crisis, if the need for a label is essential to define who you are, if have a problem calling yourself a Hindu, you are free to convert to some other faith which is very specific in all respects and does not give you the right to question and denies you the right to dissent. May the Almighty bless you with the knowledge you seek and guide you to the path of your choice.

Excellent post. Slavery is so deeply embedded in our psyhce that we are not even aware of it. Self loathing is our national unique identifying characteristic. No amount of aping someone else is going to get us the respect that we appear to crave. Why should anyone go for a cheap copy?

How can a phenomenon exist without a name, without a definition? It means it is an afterthought and being concocted.

Simple question to you. Do you believe in equality in modern sense? If no there is no point in talking anymore. If yes do you think the Hinduism is for or against equality in letter or in spirit or in practice? In my view Hinduism does not support the concept of egalitarianism either in letter or in spirit or in practice. But I would like to hear your views.

More than anything the way karma siddhanth is invoked to justify all sorts of horrible things in life is beyond words. To give an example, recent Delhi rape victims plight can be justified by Hinduism by saying that she must have performed bad karma like insulting a brahmin in previous life so now she is suffering in this life. How rediculus it is to justify any kind of misfortune a person suffers based on some karma he / she might have performed in previous life.

My similie is appropriate, and if you fail to understand, you should re-read and *understand* before going further astray. Trying to generalize a Hindu ideal as a "universal standard" without understanding what each of them means, how and when what part of the Hindu ideal became a universal standard is not going to help. Because if that is a universal standard, Katju is below the universal standard.

You are also factually flawed when you make an equivalence between Hindutva leaders like Thackarey and people like Hitler for the simple reason that the former emerged in *defense of a culture under attack* and the latter are *aggressors*. That fact is not going to change no matter how much you spin the argument.

"You may be right, but whether to consider Mr. Sharma's words to be harsh or not is a matter of opinion"

Nope - watch my words. I did not say harsh, I said factually flawed and words having *negative connotation*. And that is not a matter of opinion but of honesty.

"He made the argument that Vivekananda considered only Hinduism to be worthy of the epithet ‘religion’ and thought of Islam and Christianity to be merely sects. Others are free to make arguments opposing Mr. Sharma."

Is the author aware that Bauddha and Jaina were also called sects by Vivekananda in the larger umbrella of Hindu *society*? Is he aware that all the "religions" within Hinduism such as Sakta and Srauta were also called sects? The word religion simply had a much larger meaning, and in that context Islam and Christianity happen to be sects under the larger umbrella of Abrahamic religion. I am not disagreeing with the author, I am calling him *wrong*. He is guilty of not getting his basics right, and guilty of attempting false readings into what Vivekandanda actually said. And of course, Jyotirmaya Sharma has no clue what comprises a religion, and what he should read from the words of someone like Vivekananda - and still has the stomach to talk rubbish. Most importantly, the meaning of the words of a teacher can be seen in the actions of his followers - millions of Hindus who follow Vivekananda do not breed illwill towards the Abrahamic sects/religions.

>> The latter two names do not fall under the category that first two names fall.

Muslims feel the same way about Bal Thakerey and Narendra Modi as Jews feel about Hitler. Granted that the latter's crimes were far more immense.

>> stick to the topic without going all over the place.

You are the one who came up with Markandey Katju's criticism of Bal Thackarey upon the latter's death.

>> Hindu ideals hold that no matter how a person is when he lives, his death cannot be abused.

That is a universal standard, but some cases cry out for exceptions to be made as Justice Katju did.

>> there is definitely a lot better expected on the birth anniversary of a great man like Vivekananda.

True! You should not have brought up Bal Thackerey when discussing Vivekananda. But a reassessment of a great thinker like Vivekananda at the time of his/her anniversary is not uncommon.

>> "Jyotirmaya Sharma's choice of words with negative connotation demonstrates it beyond any doubt. What does he or outlook mean by "Hindu supremacist"?

You may be right, but whether to consider Mr. Sharma's words to be harsh or not is a matter of opinion. He made the argument that Vivekananda considered only Hinduism to be worthy of the epithet ‘religion’ and thought of Islam and Christianity to be merely sects. Others are free to make arguments opposing Mr. Sharma.

>> Hindus should not bloody care if preaching the virtues of their religion impacts people of other faiths period.

You are right, but I was referring to someone staking hegemonistic claims in the middle of an inter-faith dialogue. I see Muslims doing it also on Muslim websites, and I reprimand them too. Such claims would bring an interfaith dialogue to a quick end.

Mistakes of *people* do not become mistakes of *traditions* unless those traditions either by policy or by failure end up allowing those. And then you need to account for degradation - which is not a mistake of tradition but a consequence of purposeful destruction of traditional learning and scholarship. You need to differentiate between what is a *bad thing in Hinduism*, what is bad *in spite of Hinduism*, what is bad because of *lack of awareness of Hinduism*. You are not - which is why I called you confused.

"Blindly defending bad things is sure way to make everything look bad."

You cannot say this until you demonstrated that something is *bad*, that I have defended it without proper argumentation, and that I have blindly defended it.

@SKANDA VEERA
"Again, it is you who are making assumptions and assertions without doing *your* homework - which is none of anybody else's mistake. To know what traditional Hinduism means, seek the answers, do the study. Don't attempt shortcuts."

I am not making any assumption. I know these for a fact. I have lived in Hindu society for more half of my life and studied vedas, advaita and tantric philosophies for many years. Many times people's ego, pride in family/caste doesn't let them see the reality. There are many good things in indian culture , but there are some really bad things. Blindly defending bad things is sure way to make everything look bad.
If you remove the cover over your eyes and see things with open mind, you will see reality..

"They have not done anything of the kind. Vivekananda's status as a Hindu icon is unquestioned. His reputation as a reformist is also secure. Some questions have been raised as to whether he was as radical a reformist as he is often assumed to be. Such questions are not necessarily mala fide."

Whether they are malafide or not is evident from the words chosen. And Jyotirmaya Sharma's choice of words with negative connotation demonstrates it beyond any doubt. What does he or outlook mean by "Hindu supremacist"? Of course the Swamy's mission was to bring to light the loftiness of Hindu ideals, at a time when the world had no understanding of Hinduism whatsoever and was in an illusion that its religions are superior and deserve to cleanse Hinduism. So he definitely comes out as an icon in his own right. But holding that his religion is great (of course, nobody could successfully challenge his position and present any convincing counter-argument while he was living) does not make him a supremacist, does it? It is not only malafide but also factually wrong and unacceptable to use such words - especially when they have not done the homework.

"By this definition Hindus who live outside India are not technically Hindus."

By which definition? The geo-social distinction is *one* aspect of the definition.

"Instead a positive definition would say if you follow certain things or if you accept certain things or believe in certain things then you are considered as Hindu. "

But why should there be a "positive" definition at all? Accuracy is more important than simplicity, and both "iti" (definition by circumscribing) and "neti" (definition by elimination, classical example is the way "self" is defined in Upanishads) forms of definition are perfectly acceptable in Hindu traditions.

"Because there is no such thing as Hinduism."

This does not logically follow from the above - it just means that you have a neti kind of definition, which is well known to Hindus.

Now what you need to understand is, that the ability Hindus have and others do not is the ability to live with uncertainity and chaos. This is what Rajiv Malhotra neatly explains in "Being Different".

"So everybody including govt, RSS decided to call all these remaining guys as Hindus without ever asking them who they are. It is just a social construct. "

Another wrong conclusion. Historically they always have. Why they do not today, and why many more right from RK Mission also attempted that way is not difficult to guess - Hinduism is discriminated against and underprivileged by our very constitution.

"There is no date or time that is unsuitable for condemning Hitler or Osama. Same applies to Bal Thackerey or Narendra Modi."

Point 1: The latter two names do not fall under the category that first two names fall - to understand how, you need to do your homework. Rising for the defense of a community under attack and voluntarily seeking to attack other communities are two entirely different things, and the two categories of examples you mentioned fall into these two. Anyways, stick to the topic without going all over the place.

Point 2: That there is no unsuitable time for condemning people is not according to Hindu standards. Hindu ideals hold that no matter how a person is when he lives, his death cannot be abused - and this is something you see all through history. The way Hindu kings treated the dead bodies of invading hordes compared to the way dead bodies of valorous Hindu soldiers and kings are abused and mutilated by the ill-cultured invaders. Right from 10th century to today's LoC. There is a standard of conduct that Hindus give others and expect from others - and this is one of those. This is also the reason why Hindu leaders did not make any abusive statements when Kasab was hanged (although media did not show the same level of decency). And of course, there is definitely a lot better expected on the birth anniversary of a great man like Vivekananda. If you cannot talk good, at least keep quite is the Hindu principle.

"to defend Hinduisms proves my point. It appears you are more confused than layman in India. "

Statements like this are meaningless unless you make a proper argument how it demonstrates confusion. The point was pretty straight - that people who talk do not do their homework before talking.

"Whats is traditional Hinduism - living for benefit of your family and your caste? There is no pre-modern society in the world is not shaped or affected in some way by its religious thinking or philosophy. So you can't sepatate the behavoiur of the society from its religious thinking.."

Again, it is you who are making assumptions and assertions without doing *your* homework - which is none of anybody else's mistake. To know what traditional Hinduism means, seek the answers, do the study. Don't attempt shortcuts.

>>is whether Hindus need to be more sensitive about how such an argument will impact on people of other faiths.

I don't know why such moronic standards are repeatedly applied only to Hinduism. Hindus should not bloody care if preaching the virtues of their religion impacts people of other faiths period. Islam and Christianity are proselytizing religious. Islam even claims to be the 'fastest growing'. Proselyting activities by definition impacts people of other faiths. But try and ban conversion even by force and allurement and the same people who ask Hindus to be sensitive start howling!

Glad to see that at least somebody knows something. You yourself are saying that Hinduism is a name given by others not a name proclaimed by itself. It is not just you who is saying this. Indian govt and RSS and veer savarkar has provided similar definition of hinduism. And it is not a positive definition, but a negative one. What I mean by negative is that it takes a population that lives in a geographic location and then eliminates Christians, Muslims and Jews from it and calls remaining people as hindus. By this definition Hindus who live outside India are not technically Hindus. Instead a positive definition would say if you follow certain things or if you accept certain things or believe in certain things then you are considered as Hindu. You have definition of who is brahmin or who kshatriya or who is shaivite or vaishnavite but there is no definition of hindu or Hinduism for a reason. Because there is no such thing as Hinduism. So everybody including govt, RSS decided to call all these remaining guys as Hindus without ever asking them who they are. It is just a social construct. If you go and ask them,many of them will disagree. Buddhists , jains, Sikhs and lot of tribals won't identify themselves as Hindus. I know lot of brahmins who follow vedic tradition does not believe in idol worship / temples and won't identify themselves as Hindus. If you can convince enough people to believe in some crap they not only believe it but take it seriously.

To answer your question, I am born as Hindu and raised as Hindu and not a practitioner on a daily basis. But I have to admit that I do the rituals in extreme scenarios like family members birth/ death kind of scenarios but just don't believe in it. And I don't have anything against Hinduism or India. As a matter of fact , I love India it pains me to see all population believe in all kinds of superstition and not having any core values.

@ Skanda Veera
The fact that you need to use words like "lack of sense of depth of time" , "study subjects in traditional Hinduism the methodical way", "sense of proportion" etc to defend Hinduisms proves my point. It appears you are more confused than layman in India.

Whats is traditional Hinduism - living for benefit of your family and your caste? There is no pre-modern society in the world is not shaped or affected in some way by its religious thinking or philosophy. So you can't sepatate the behavoiur of the society from its religious thinking..

The inferiority complex among Hindus is amazing.
I think it is unparalleled in the world. Maybe the Buddhists of Sri Lanka and South Korea would compete with Indian Hindus.
They convert to christianity and give their kids names like Russel Arnold.
That has to be the most exotic name you will ever hear in a south asian context given to a sri lankan man.
No, actually it is Dimitri Mascarenhas, another Sri Lankan.

@M.K. Chaitanya:
I don't see the point in asking this stupid question that who is a hindu.
And you further go on to claim that since there is no clear definition we must accept evils existing in it & accept that it is not a religion.
Well, we accept evils existing in what is called 'Hinduism' anyway with or without a definition. We also accept that it is not a religion. True!
It is generally philosophy and in some cases mixed with theology.
That is actually a good thing. Why are you speaking like some mad evangelical? Are you one? Because sensible people see these kind of questions as pointless. And it is common knowledge that evangelicals by definition cannot be sensible.
Anyway to definitions, there are three aspects and stages you have to take into consideration here.
1 is the creation of the term Hindu. This was by the persians who used it as a geographic term. It applied to people who lived in what is called south asia with a civilisation different to the persian one.
2 would be the popularisation of the term. This was done by the Islamic groups invading India especially. They used it to describe the 'pagans' in India ie. All Indian Pagans were referred to as Hindu.
3 would be the officialisation of the term. This happened through our constitution. Our constitution makes it clear in more than one place who the Hindus are. And specifically the Hindu Marriage Act makes it clear that the term is used to describe all non abrahamics ie. All indians with non abrahamic life philosophies or 'religions' are termed Hindus. It makes this explicitly clear by naming the veershaivas, arya samajis etc.
So the kabeerpanthis, the sai baba worshippers, the tantricas, the sikhs, the buddhists & the neo buddhists, the jains, the vedic dharmees and the pauranikas are all considered Hindu.

So within this the guy who plonks a rod in his mouth from one end to the other Tantrik style is also a Hindu & Adi Shankara who is easily the most spiritually intellectual individual in the world, including the Buddha, is also 'Hindu'. And we accept the stupidity existing in sections of Hinduism.
Now if others could do the same it would be quite pleasing, right?

Dear Jyotirmaya Sharma,to understand Vivekanda and his work you have to take a deep dive, so that you understand the various mood and circumstances when things were told or written, you have totally forgoton that Ramkrishna himself has said vivekananda is the perfect soul so there is no question of any error , trust me you are sounding very intellectual ,after so many years have past you have awoke with your critics......try to understand the time when things were said .....that is for sure nothing can be compared to what Ramkrishna has said and how things were put across, but ramkrishna always praised vivekanda's point of view because he knew vivekananda was not an ordinary soul, he was the one with his orignal ideas which if you read his work closely it goes parallely with what ramkrishna said, swamaji was the need of the hour...
Your verse in your so called book " Vivekananda’s interpretation of Ramakrishna is both simultaneously an act of fidelity and distortion " in response to this verse, i feel if somebody understood Ramkrishna it was Swami Vivekananda it is not my verdict ramkrishna use to feel that way.......my dear Jyotirmaya Sharmaji by writing such things by and large you are creating confusion amongst the readers ...... trust me you need to sit and actually contemplate on what these great people have said, mere reading book after book and wiritng one more book will not serve the purpose ...........you must have refered 100's of book but trust me .......you need to exprience religion ......it is supersensous ......need higher senses.........to understand things .........

I too am against azaan or any other religious chanting disturbing the peace of any residential neighborhoods in our pluralistic societies. By the way Kalima Tayyab is only a Muslim's affirmation of his monotheism and his acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet. However it does not need to be broadcast on loudspeakers.

>> Hindus are, by and large, more sensitive and tolerant of other religions.

That may be so, but that is a poor answer to the specific point namely that it may be insensitive to call Hinduism "all encompassing" when neither Buddhists, Sikhs, Muslims nor Christians consider it to be so. More importantly, it is important for both Hindus and Muslims to learn to say, "We are good", without saying, "We are better"!

They have not done anything of the kind. Vivekananda's status as a Hindu icon is unquestioned. His reputation as a reformist is also secure. Some questions have been raised as to whether he was as radical a reformist as he is often assumed to be. Such questions are not necessarily mala fide.

Either you believe that the eminent historians writing for Outlook and The Hindu have gleaned some unique insights on Swamiji that have evaded billions, or you believe that they are full of shit. You do need an IQ above 80 to believe the latter.

Again lack of sense of depth of time - learned Hindus are not confused, and layman who is otherwise academically educated is confused. And this is precisely because the traditional education with all its limbs is replaced by colonial education. So it is not an eternal truth that Hinduism is confusing - it is confusing today because people don't care to learn their bit before talking. And this Jyotirmayi Sharma is one good example of that. You might have learned several subjects academically, but have you learned any single subject in traditional Hinduism the methodical way? There lies the issue - and you cannot put the blame on anybody else for your being a layman!

Again, there are no contradictions as you seem to think - just lack of study. And then, you take another leap to link the problems of society to Hinduism - as if those problems are not already in human nature and in every single human society and are unique to Hinduism. If anything, if you do some homework and study of history, you will realize that Hindu society could contain these problems way better than any other society did. Do not lose the sense of time and sense of proportion.

And then from the social issues you again take another leap to the spiritual philosophers as if they were social reformers. You need to understand what is social, what is political, what is religious, what is philosophical, what is academic, what is practical, what is temporal, and what is eternal. And that requires learning. Making farfetched comments is of no use - when the subject is technical, it better be treated that way instead of every one trying to be an expert. Unfortunately that is the state of Hinduism today, which is why anyone says anything with no homework done.

No, you did not ask a straightforward question upon your own admission - "There is no simple answer. "

As for the other part that "if you have to read an entire book to understand whether somebody is a hindu or not, that is when you have a problem." this statement is ill-posed. First of all there is no such things as "understanding whether somebody is a hindu or not". There is nobody confering a Hindu tag on anyone. And for someone within the fold he knows amply well what he is. There is neither a need for one liner description nor an attempt. As I mentioned clearly enough, it is a general word that refers to several things put together. And that general word was never needed until we were invaded by bipartile ideologies that try to categorize humans as followers and non-followers. As far as Hinduism is concerned, there is no such bipartile differentiation or discrimination. So out of the practical need to defend against those, the otherwise universal system has given itself a practical term called Hinduism. So your question is itself meaningless.

Hindu religion is nothing but confusion. Most of the Hindus are confused about values they should their life with, or which scriptures to follow. Different gurus preach different values. Ram had one wife but then krishna had many. Torture, bad treatment of women, lower castes and other people, rape, cheating, lying, killing and almost everything has sanction in Hinduism with some of the revered figures indulging in these acts. To be fair there are examples of other people living life with truth, courage, taking care of other people. Another things Hinduism supports is ascetism and denying oneself pleasures of life. So it makes oneself feel ashamed of living life fully. Caste system makes things even more complicated. Now you can't help or seek help or deal with another person because you don't know if he is from your caste, pure or impure. Because of these contradictions, Many hindus don't have core of values and have hollowed personality.

Some of the people like buddha, Mahavira, nanak understood these issues and tried to reform and come up with right set of values, but their following has been limited and reign of confusion prevails.

the problem with the nature of debate is going round and round with out ever answering the question directly. I asked a simple question and I hear lot of commentary about my knowledge / ignorance, my name and my lack of understanding about our great customs and traditions. but what I don;t hear is the answer to the very staright forward question. if you have to read an entire book to understand whether somebody is a hindu or not, that is when you have a problem.

DL Narayan >>> the recitation of the first Kalima Tayyab, which is being recited 5 times a day without bothering about "the (its) impact on people of different faiths".

And I have my ears drums still reverberting hearing the supremacy of Allah and his prophet 5 times a day from not one but 5 green coloured loudspears ... in that one month I spent in old Lucknow last year ... one of them was from a house top not a mosque. What could be more supremacist than that ...

Hai,
This is for Mr.JYOTIRMAYA SHARMA .Your feature about Vivekananda Swami is very nice "LITERALLY" and a complete rubbish "FACTUALLY". If you are looking for some attention better try something with stuff in it. It's not Swamiji who misinterpretted, it's you and that too for pity shame. I'm sure the Outlook magazine should have increased it's circulation this week just because of Swamiji's image on it's cover. You don't have the spine to write about the real religious suprimists who exist even today and you don't have the right to blame Swamiji. You don't do a thing for India or the World and you are commenting on a person who dedicated his whole life for his country? Pretty funny.
And Swamiji don't need your certificate for his life's achievements.It's in you there is a self suprimist.And don't think it's because of you that this feature got this much of viewers it's because of Swamiji.
So it's my request that don't write these kind of rubbish in such a good magazine SIR.
Better luck next time for some attention SIR.

"I challenge the Hindu champions in this forum to provide the formal definition of hinduism" M K Chaitanya

Chaitanya showing a huge deficit of the quality embedded in his name. Hope that the irony is not lost on him. Jokes apart, this is not the place to learn what Hinduism is and you seem to be totally brainwashed that any edification regarding Hinduism will be nothing but an exercise in futility.

I am neither a Hindu champion (it needs no champions because of its inherent strength) nor am I erudite enough. If you are sincere about knowing about Hinduism, I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the excellent "Am I a Hindu ? The Hinduism primer" by Viswanthan. You will learn much more about Hinduism than you can from a magazine like Outlook or from authors like Jyotirmaya Sharma...Jyotirmaya, another case of parental hopes being dashed. Instead of spreading light, this worthy spreads lies.

"When the 'Atma' separates from 'Parmatma' and descends to the mortal world it would be subject to tension between it's 'Need' to 'remerge and it's 'Desire' for separate existence and it's alluring experiences. Can somebody enlighten me?" Post 110

Aditya, I shall answer the last question first. Nobody can enlighten you but yourself. Scriptures and Gurus are just guides, you have to do the walking.

Regarding the Atma (Atma and Paramatma are synonyms; Jivatma is the correct word of individualsoul) and the Paramatma, there is no separation. It is just Maya, an illusion. The Jivatma never is separate, ignorance (avidya) gives it a feeling of separation. It enters a body at shortly after its conception and separates from the body at death. The separation and reunion is nothing but an illusion. The basic divinity is never lost to be regained. The "desire for a separate identity" is due to the Jivatma (individual soul) forgetting its essential divine nature and the "need to remerge" will come to the fore only after realisation dawns. This dawning is what enlightenment is all about.

"Vivekananda is a racist" shows your level of understanding more than anything else. Are you aware of his times and the contemporary theories of his times? Every leaders speech is a product of the times, and trying to evaluate it today, with your understanding of the terms as if they were used in the same sense by the Swamy, is meaningless.

As for the word Hindu, your understanding of it as mumbo jumbo just suits you. Because you are the one failing to see how a custom, religion and tradition are related. Of course, Hinduism was never and is not a single religion - Hinduism has several religions, several spiritual philosophies, several knowledge traditions, several social customs, several ethno-cultural units... So instead of trying to throw challenges off-hand, do some homework to evolve your picture of this near to incomprehensible maze, which the seers like Swamy Vivekananda comprehended and taught in comprehensible ways for the layman.

Anwaar, you have said that "Hindus need to be more sensitive about how such an argument will impact on people of other faiths"

In my humble opinion, Hindus are, by and large, more sensitive and tolerant of other religions. Even though India is overwhelmingly Hindu, barring a radical fringe, most are happy to practice their own faith and allow others to practice their own. Enough has been said about the recitation of the first Kalima Tayyab, which is being recited 5 times a day without bothering about "the impact on people of different faiths". Maybe, the idea is to have an impact.

In Saudi Arabia, no non-believer is allowed within a 50 km radius (not sure about the actual number) of the holy city of Makkah. All people who are non-Muslims are barred from practicing their faith. In every Islamic country, pork is banned. In India, we conduct Beef Festivals to "prove" our "secular" credentials (I wonder how slaughter of animals can be called a festival; it is nothing but an extremely repugnant orgy of violence).

A Jyotirmaya Sharma or a Shuddhabrata Sengupta can denigrate our scriptures, our highly venerated sages like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, without worrying about their personal safety. Wish I could say the same thing about apostates from other religions.

First of all, similar to Markandey Katju's criticism of Bal Thackarey upon the latter's death, the anti-Hindus' timing of criticism of a person with his demise or a jayanti, is absolutely ill-mannered. For the kind of contribution Swamy Vivekandanda did, regardless of one's opinions, launching a general criticism is on his 150th birthday celebration, is something not expected from Outlook.

As for the content, the audacity with which Jyotirmaya Sharma tries to evaluate the Swamy is a little surprising. He says that Vivekananda tries to uphold the brahmin ideal, but does not try to quote the Swamy for what that ideal is - he tries to put his own words in the mouth of the Swamy - "The Brahminical ideal of purity, culture and self-sacrifice was, at once, the caste ideal, the race ideal and the national ideal". But then, NO - that is definitely not what Swamy Vivekananda defines as the brahmin ideal or that of the Sanatana Dharma. First of all he needs to understand what is and can be organized in a society, and what is an ideal. Second, he needs to understand the goals of these two as distinct. Third, he needs to make an accurate reporting of both. What Mr. Sharma spitefully calls as brahmin ideal, in Swamiji's words, is the eternal knowledge, which according to Hindu metaphysics is the ultimate destination of every being. Caste ideal and ritual purity as per Vivekananda is neither universal nor the goal of life - in fact he himself criticizes the Vaidika lifestyle while eulogising the Vedantic ideal. This kind of half-homework is pervasive in the article, and I assume this example is sufficient.

I challenge the Hindu champions in this forum to provide the formal definition of hinduism. who is a Hindu? There is no simple answer. You can come up with any criteria and then you run the risk of people being left out. It is because Hinduism was never a religion and it will never be one. It is a hodge lodge of local customs, traditions and mostly superstitions tied together by brahminical jumbo mumbo in a hierarchical fashion.

The choice is simple for Hindu champions. Either accept the narrow definition of Hinduism and don't bother about including panchamas, shudras and tribals. Or reform Hinduism to include all these guys and accept that caste system was a mistake and provide apology to all lower castes belittled in Hindu scriptures and start with a clean slate.

All debates and discussions that have ensued after the review in “The Outlook” of the ignoble book written by Mr. Jyotirmaya Sharma to denigrate the Icon of the Hindus, Swami Vivekananda revolves around the apparent conflict between the Secular and the Communal. This in itself is a fallacy because these two words in their etymological sense are not contradictory.

Secular, meaning temporal or worldly ( not having anything to do with religion ) and communal, meaning pertaining to a community are not mutually exclusive because group of individuals can be communally ( as a community ) Secular or be a Secular Community.
The opposite of Secularism is NOT Communalism but Theocracy.

A truly Secular State has nothing to do with religion and is ONLY involved in the Temporal, Worldly and Materialistic aspect of the lives of its citizens. It neither promotes nor discourages the practice of any religion WHEREAS a Theocratic state sponsors and enforces the diktats of one religion and does not allow the practice of any other.

The strange phenomenon in the Secular Democratic India, is that the State instead of having a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens has the Hindu Code Bills (the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), Hindu Succession Act (1956), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956 ) for Hindus, the Muslim Personal Laws and Christian Personal laws governing all social activities of these communities. The State also controls and regulates religious institutions of the Majority Community while keeping all Minority institutions from its purview.

Apart from this institutionalized discrimination against the majority Hindus we have the “Secular Fanatics” like Mr. Jyotirmaya Sharma, Mani Shankar Aiyer and other Congress Stooges who time and again discredit and demonize the esteemed Icons and Institutions of the Hindus to establish their credentials.

The Hindus can be categorized as ‘ Social ‘ Hindus ( who consider themselves as Hindus and are more concerned about the social issues caste discrimination, dowry system, child marriage etc.), ‘ Religious ‘ Hindus ( who are rigorous practitioners of the rituals, Pujas and deity worship in the temples ) and ‘ Spiritual ‘ Hindus ( who are more eclectic, Universal and Philosophical in their understanding of religion ). Religious Fundamentalism and Exclusiveness may be a creed with a small minority of the religious Hindus and by and large most Hindus are in the middle of the political spectrum.

However, Swami Vivekananda is revered by all categories of Hindus as a social / religious reformer and a spiritualist. It should not be surprising that as a consequence of the Wild, Willful and Deplorable insinuations against this Noble and Honorable Spiritualist in the pages of Outlook many Hindus will move towards the Right of Center or extreme Right and seriously rethink their Political options.Mr. Mehta and Mr. Sharma have redefined Secularism as Anti Hinduism and done immense harm to the cause of Religious Harmony.

Isn’t it ironic that these high priests of Secularism who wax eloquently against the caste systems have no qualms of using their surnames – Jyotirmaya ‘ Sharma ‘, Mani Shankar ‘ Aiyer ‘, Vinod ‘ Mehta ‘ etc. to emphasize their Brahmin antecedents. What Hypocrisy???

On my way back to work, I went to a duty-free shop at New Delhi airport. Wishing to buy some souvenir, I asked the attendant if he has anything traditional, more Indian I can gift someone.
“No sir, we only keep imported item.” He acclaimed.
Nothing unusual for some shop keeping only imported goods. But the proud oozing out of his eyes, his smile; the contempt reflected for ‘Indian thing’ in his reaction, stunned me.

If one goes into roots of this character of self-loathing, low self-esteem; and find out the building blocks of that foundation. It is the material, coming out from the factory of Pundit Jyotirmaya Sharma.
Days and night we fight over secular-communal, left wing-right wing and so on. We choose and pick the targets we see outrageous. But no, those are just retail stores. Factory is somewhere else. You don’t see them, you don’t hear them, but they run the show. Pundit Jyotirmaya Sharma is one of those factories.
Take not lightly!!!
Obvious I don’t mean Pt Sharma alone, but the JNU types. JNU being the metaphor.

I have no problem with the existence of this breed, I do not have problem with their questioning anything and everything. I have problem with their controlling everything. I have problem with their being the ‘only’ material in building us; you, me, our children and grandchildren.
We all hate the pathetic condition of our sports bodies. The cartel of cronyism is so powerful that even sport-person like Kapil Dev, powerful ministers like Makan, cannot penetrate that.
You got the picture.

With all my due apologies and I mean no disrespect, but most (if not all) of these folks are from so-called “humanitarian subject” background.
Sorry to sounding like Katju, but these humanitarian subjects, like sociology, history, political studies, are not scientific; unless they are backed by some real science, as, archeology, statistics, math, etc.
And no, they are not as same as art, literature or philosophy.

I am not saying that all those who study these subjects are non-scientific minds, and all those who study science subjects are scientific minds. I am objecting to the idea, the method to pursue these subjects.
These areas are heavily (heavily is too mild) driven by interpretation and opinion.
Who is saying it, matters more than, what is being said.
Pt Sharma, they say, is Prof of “Political Science”.
Science?

Give you two examples,

Not convinced by quantum uncertainty, Einstein told many times in different ways “God doesn't play dice with the world”. Once it was established that he indeed was wrong. No one could possibly hesitate to say so, no matter it was Einstein himself.

One guy called Max Muller, who never visited India, had no archeological backing at all, whose command over Sanskit was said to be that of school children. He came up with a crazy idea; he called it Aryan Invasion theory. Our “humanitarian subject” folks took that as it is, just because he said so. It has been over ten years that any and every remaining doubt is solved after DNA testing. But no, we still carry that.

Coming to the “political science” of Pt Sharma ji, it is more of a ‘theoretical’ subject. It has a ‘practical’ off-spring, called Psephology. You might see that around every election. Even though it has all backing of statistics and mathematics, but you bet; chachaji under the peepal tree will be as correct as these psephologist anytime.

There is difference, there is fundamental difference. It is not science.

All I am trying to say here is, when these folks speak, always take that with hand full of salt. There is always more air, there is always more opinion. Less or none, science (or scientific thinking).
Didn’t we see a score of these folks being ripped by court in Babri case?
It will break the social harmony they say. My little cousin seems wiser, who forwarded me this facebook message, “best friends never have the same nature; they just have best understanding of their differences".

***“He used it to mean what he thought was Ramakrishna’s tolerance, generosity and inclusiveness in relation to other faiths while carefully glossing …”Someone from Dharmic thought will bang the head on the wall.
Why tolerance?
Isn’t that insulting?

“… not even a sect like the Muslims whom “we always regard as the most exclusive”. Again, Muslims and Islam are reduced to a sect and condemned as “exclusive”…..”

First, there isn’t much difference between “sect” and “religion”. It is just the difference of number. Then again, are you sure that the word “sect” was used with same contempt back then, as it is today?

Second, either you didn’t spend time reading about Abrahamic religions, or you are being smart by half.
“Condemned as exclusive”, he wrote.
“Condemned”?
“Exclusivity” is ‘the’ fundamental factor. Where is the scope of condemnation?
No need to even ask Christian or Muslim scholars, just ask ordinary folks. Their way is ‘the’ only way. ‘Non-believers’ are to be converted or at most condemned to be “tolerated”.
Tolerance is a virtue you said?

“If India’s past had to become its future, especially if this past had anything to do with the ‘centre’ or ‘core’ of Hindu India’s life, namely religion, the question of caste had to be confronted ….”I can understand people like Max Muller not understanding the difference of Varna and Jati. But a professor born in India, in a Pundit family does not understand it?
He failed to clarify if he mean Varna, Jati, Gotra, or what?
He failed to clarify whether it is “Caste” which is a problem or it is the “Caste discrimination”? And what is Vivekanand’s clarification on that?

“‘core’ of Hindu India’s life, namely religion”, he writes.
What caste has to do with religion?
And which religion anyways?

One can go on and on. It is so flawed research that difficult to call it research.
Was there any flaw in Swami Vivekanand?
Of course there must have been. But no, this research is just about Pt Sharma’s ideological reflection on Swami Vivekanand, nothing else.

And, no Outlook, there is no concept of "Dharma for the State". There is a concept of "Dharma of the State", your favorite, "Raj Dharma.

>> " it is tough for Hindus to present the ideal of their 'belief' or 'spirituality' in any other way. For them this is a lived reality. How else do they say it?"

You may be right, but whether it is seen as being hegemonistic or not depends upon the context. Another point, implied in your excellent comment, is whether Hindus need to be more sensitive about how such an argument will impact on people of other faiths.

Let us look at what Anwaar says about people showing hegemonistic streak when they say that Hinduism is all encompassing and wider and other 'religions' are therefore somehow 'less'.

I agree with Anwar's point. It does appear so.

This is at the base of resentment of non-Hindus with the Hindutva philosophy.

It is this sence of assumed and politically superior undertone which creates resentment.

What about Muslims, even Jains, Budhists and Sikhs get agitated when their identity is subsumed within the larger Hindu one.

However, it is tough for Hindus to present the ideal of their 'belief' or 'spirituality' in any other way. For them this is a lived reality. How else do they say it?

I would like to present it as an intersting real world example of the philosophical dispute between Dvaita and Advaita.

When the 'Atma' separates from 'Parmatma' and descends to the mortal world it would be subject to tension between it's 'Need' to 'remerge and it's 'Desire' for separate existence and it's alluring experiences.

"Christians, Muslims, Jews and Parsis were all called "melecchas", not a term of honour"
Wrong. Mleccha is not religion specific. Savage, is it's meaning.
Pretty similiar to the word pagan. Which abrahamics are happy to use even now. This is just projection of abrahamic prejudices onto Hindus.
As for the dalit problem, that is not sanctioned or mandated or ordered by any genuine scripture. Gandhi said the same. Again, abrahamics treatment of non believers in south asia in the last 1000 years and around the world is only too well know. In medieval india the same labour classes fought against the invaders and put up the most stiff resistance to them.
If Islam was so inclusive, these tribes and 'castes' would not have done the same.

@Comment69 Anwaar,
No god but Allah(the one) and prophet muhammad is last messenger of allah.
This is understood because if you accept prophet muhammad as a messenger, you must accept his words that he was the last messenger of 'allah'.
This is exclusive. And there are 70 different sects. The concept of Tawheed also exists which is strict monotheism.
Vedanta is not monotheism. Brahman is not even god. As per advait Vedanta, the vedic Ishvar, your Allah, is an illusion. Brahman is an abstract concept. Vedanta is monism as per advait and vishishtadvait, for example.
Monism is not Monotheism. Big difference.

You said, "When Judaism faced discrimination everywhre, they found none in India. When Christians were being fed to lions in Rome, in India they were free to come and preach. Likewise with the ancient Zoroastrians". You say that was not professing superiority. There is no evangelism in Hinduism, but Christians, Muslims, Jews and Parsis were all called "melecchas", not a term of honour. And you forgot to mention how the Dalits were treated for the past 2000 years.

>> The intolerance comes to the fore only when sustained attacks are made against their faith.

That is exactly what Muslims say too!

>> had I stopped right there, you would say have said that I am making far fetched claims.

' What all "religions" need the most is more humility, not claims of "encompassment", whatever that is'..........Anwaar

Encompassment means inclusiveness; it means accepting every idea as a facet of the Truth and rejecting none of those ideas. Monotheism rejects polytheism and idol worship. I cannot see how monotheism is superior to any other concept of God. Humility comes when one realises the futility of the human mind in trying to understand the nature of God. Religions need not be humble, they aren't individuals. Humility is a quality that is desirable in humans.

It is time to catch my flight now. Shall resume the discussion after I reach home.

"That's good. But you should have stopped after this sentence. Instead you went on, like our mullas, to profess superiority!";....Anwaar

Anwaarbhai, had I stopped right there, you would say have said that I am making far fetched claims. . Hence the need to substantiate whatever I say.. I just attempted to explain the inherent catholicity of Hinduism.

It was not "professing superiority" as you seem to believe. If any statement of mine reeks of superiority, it is the one in which I said that spirituality is superior to religion. Nowhere did I say that my religion is superior to others or that all other religions are false. I just stated what I felt were the reasons for the accommodating spirit of my religion

Please counter arguments with counter arguments instead of accusing me of behaving like a mullah.!

Your erudite comments clearly originate from a deep and 'sahaj' understanding of the Bharatiya tradition and heritage. They also indicate an intellect far superior to the self styled 'intellectuals' like Sharma and his tribe.

Sadly, your comments are wasted on these bigots. They will not understand because they do not want to understand.

IMHO, "Hinduism" is not a RELIGION as understood and practised in the SEMITIC context of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. It is the DHARMA which has no single word translation in English. And since Hindus believe that DHARMA is ETERNAL their "religion" is SANATAN DHARMA which encompasses all.

This is what the great Swami proclaimed and professed and why lauded, even revered and epitomized by many ...

D.L.Narayan,
>> This shows that a Hindu can follow any religion and yet be a Hindu.

I don't know whether that is good or bad, profound or cynical. But if it works for you, that is all that counts.........Anwaar

It works for me and most of my co-religionists too, who throng to Dargahs, Gurudwaras, Velankini and other such holy sites. They respect divinity in all forms. The intolerance comes to the fore only when sustained attacks are made against their faith. When Judaism faced discrimination everywhre, they found none in India. When Christians were being fed to lions in Rome, in India they were free to come and preach. Likewise with the ancient Zoroastrians.

One should transcend labels and make the transition from religion to spirituality. In the final analysis, it is more important to be a good human being than a "religious" one. Better to be a liberal atheist than a bigoted man of religion.

Instead of the irrational attacks and rantings, let us see if anybody provides any evidence that any of the quotes from Vivekananda are misrepresented....H M Siddhanti

It is obvious for anyone familiar with Swami Vivekanada's work that he is not a bigot by any stretch of imagination. In India, one does not courage to abuse the mainstream religion; one needs to have the courage of a Salman Rushdie or a Tasleema Nasreen to criticise any other religion.

Having debunked the so-called "courage" of this writer, I think that Mr. Siddhanti should read my comments about how he distorts the idea of a Brahmin from a man of the highest intellectual and spiritual calibre to a racial idea. I had also explained at length how the concept of moral corruption through the ages from the Satya yuga to the Kali yuga had been given a casteist spin. I had also explained that caste was originally a scientific, non-heriditary division of labour which over a period of time degenerated into a heriditary and unjust oligarchy. I had also explained that Dwija means twice born - once from the mother's womb and the other from the womb of ignorance. In the Gita, it is clearly said that by birth all are Shudras...they go up the caste hierarchy, like in any meritocracy, by their actions. Yet, playing on the ignorance of the people at large about these lofty spiritual concepts, mischievious "intellectuals" grossly misrepresent facts in the hope of some reward from the powers-that-be.

Yet, all that the "Siddhanti" sees are "irrational rantings and attacks". He is the best example of why hereditary inheritance of caste led to the sorry state of affairs today. I will be surprised if he even knows what his name means, etymologically!

All we can say is, "I believe in my religion, and I respect your religion". Instead when one says, "My religion is broad enough to include all religions," some people may see hegemonic tendencies in it, although I don't.

All religions consider themselves to be the best. That is not the topic of this article.

How do I read this article? Vivekananda's reputation as a scholar and a teacher is secure. This article says that his reputation as a reformer needs to be re-examined. Similar questions have been raised for other modern religious reformers, e.g. Maulana Maududi or Rev. Reinhold Niebuhr.

Should contemporary religious discourse focus on the question of supremacist attitudes that pervade all religions? We seem to have been conditioned in such a way that even while trying to make fair and balanced statements, either our defensiveness or a whiff of "but we are better" seeps through. It can be seen on Muslim websites, and it can be seen in this forum. Hindus used to make claims of being free from such tendencies, but since the rise of right wing Hindutva nationalism, the Internet Hindus have filled the boards with supremacist rants that can match the sermons of Rev. Pat Robertson or Dr. Zakir Naik!

The author should be commended for his painstaking and scholarly work as well as the courage to write such a book in the current Indian environment. Instead of the irrational attacks and rantings, let us see if anybody provides any evidence that any of the quotes from Vivekananda are misrepresented.

This is what the great Swami said ... beware you will be lablled a Hindu Supremacist too ....The Contrarian

I don't mind being called anything. I am a non-entity. However, it is absolutely, totally incorrect to bracket that spiritual giant with an ignorant dwarf like me.

Yet, when these morally bankrupt, intellectually challenged imbeciles write 300-page books seeking to cast reprehensible slurs and aspersions on one of India's greatest sons, it makes me very, very angry. There is a covert political agenda behind these attacks and the foot soldiers are these unethical merceneries who are being utilised to wage an all-out attack on Swami Vivekananda just because he is the man from whom Narendra Modi draws his inspiration. They would not mind stooping so low as to defame the memory of a National Icon on his 150th birth anniversary. Shame on you reprobate blackguards.

"and the phrase is, "Muhammed is His Prophet," not "His only Prophet".

Yeah. I got that part wrong. I realized it later.

As for Allah and God, I have read the interpretations of Allah being the "Brahman" of Hindus. That is only an interpretation-not what Mohammed meant and it is not borne out by what Allah himself says in various places of the Quran.

DL Narayan >>> This shows that a Hindu can follow any religion and yet be a Hindu. A Muslim or a Christian can only follow his own religion and cannot be a heretic or an apostate, a luxury which is afforded to Hindus.This shows that a Hindu can follow any religion and yet be a Hindu. A Muslim or a Christian can only follow his own religion and cannot be a heretic an apostate, a luxury which is afforded to Hindus.

This is what the great Swami said ... beware you will be lablled a Hindu Supremacist too ...

"The Wikipedia says, " Hinduism inherits religious concepts spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed."....Anwaar

"Just as after learning about Islam and Christianity, Vivekananda’s Ramakrishna comes to the conclusion that these faiths led to the same goal that Ramakrishna had already reached. Similarly, Vivekananda learnt from his Master that all religions in the world were phases of one eternal religion"...Jyotirmaya Sharma

“There never was my religion or yours, my national religion or your national religion; there never existed many religions, there is only the one. One Infinite Religion existed all through eternity and will ever exist, and this Religion is expressing itself in various countries, in various ways.” ..Swami Vivekananda

"It is Vivekananda, who considered only Hinduism to be worthy of the epithet ‘religion’ and thought of Islam and Christianity to be merely sects."..J.Sharma

"Ekam Sat; Viprah Bahuda"....There is only one Truth; the wise perceive it in different ways...Rig Veda

A careful scrutiny of the above statements shows that there is no logical inconsistency. Hinduism, the syncretic religion encompasses all schools of thought, animism, paganism, polytheism, monotheism and pantheism, amongst others, even atheism. This shows that a Hindu can follow any religion and yet be a Hindu. A Muslim or a Christian can only follow his own religion and cannot be a heretic or an apostate, a luxury which is afforded to Hindus.

Can anyone prove that there is any logical inconsistency if anyone says that Christianity or Islam are purely monotheistic sects and can never be inclusive; Hinduism, on the other hand, tries to accommodate widely divergent streams of thought.

In fact, at the highest level of spiritual consciousness, labels cease to exist, even attachment to a particular religion. Anwaar bhai,if this isnt this sarva dharma sambhavana, I do not know what is.

Arabic "Ilahi" is translated as divine or divinity in English. So, "La Ilaha Illallah, Muhammudur Rasulullah" simply means: There is no divinity but Allah, and Muhammed is His Messenger.

Pagan Arabs were polytheist. God except Allah is mentioned always in the plural in Quran, and since there were numerous deities representing divinity or God, the translation "There is no deity but Allah" would have convinced pagans that there is only one deity, diviniy or God and that is Allah.

OK. Indian secular fanatics have started questioning Vivekananda himself and insulted him by calling a supremacist. Now using the same yardstick can we expect another article on Prophet Mohammad- the supremacist? Did not Prophet say that HE is THE last messenger of god and all idol worshippers will be doomed in hell? Did not he say that Islam is the only truth and Allah the only god (why, he even demolished Qureshi temples and idols in Kaaba)!! Is it not an extreme form of supremacism and fascism?? Of course it is! But the question is , will outlook editors have the courage to publish such a cover story- complete with a picture of Prophet????
Similar way did not Jesus Christ claim that he IS the son of god and billions of his followers claim the only way to heaven is through Jesus? Does that mean Outlook will write another cover story calling Pope John Paul, Mother Theresa and billions of other Christians as supremacists??? Sickening double standards!!!!

>>>> is quite consistent with the Hindu concept of one supreme being, Brahma,
>> No it is not. The concept of Brahma in Hinduism is the concept of non-duality.

I would not dispute you on that. The Wikipedia says, " Hinduism inherits religious concepts spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed."

Muslims who say it mean that there is only one God. Jews and Christians too believe there is only one God. Many Hindu religious leaders have repeatedly stressed that while God's forms are many and the ways to communicate with him are many, God is one.

Dear all, Please don't get worked up by such criticism of Swamiji. Ignore it. The "Secular Liberal Intellectual Spitters' & Barkers' association" always tries their hands at such writings to prove their modernism & mainly for livelyhood. Poor things have to feed their families you see. Criticising Swamiji, is like spitting at the SUN & that too when the SUN is overhead. The spit can never reach the SUN & we all know where it lands!!

The pathetic effort of a political hack like Mr. Jotirmaya Sharma to vilify and besmirch Swami Vivekananda is an insult to most of the more than 80 crore Hindus who are inspired and motivated by him to love and adore this blessed land..

The Cardinal sin of Swami Vivekananda in the secular lexicon is not what He said or practiced in his times but that he has been the source of inspiration to the RSS since its inception along with countless others who are the icons of Indian Nationalism. Mr. Sharma’s Visceral and illogical hatred of the RSS and its nation building efforts is reason enough to denigrate, distort and malign these great souls.

It is well documented that the “ World Parliament of Religion “ in 1893 was meant to establish the supremacy of Christianity over the heathen and pagan religions. Indeed, the Swami was designated as the last speaker so that anything he said would have the least impact. However, his majestic presence, intellect and words brought to the western world, probably for the first time the lofty Universal truth as enshrined in the glorious Hindu Tradition. Such was the effect of his maiden speech that he became an overnight celebrity and his fame spread like wildfire by word to mouth. To the Western world Swami highlighted the Inclusiveness, the Eclectic Thought and Universalism of the Hindu philosophy.

However, on his return, when confronted with the low self esteem, docility and lack of confidence of the Hindus Swamiji exhorted them, as the inheritors of the Greatest and most Sublime Hindu culture and religion to “ Arise, Awake and stop not till the goal is reached. “

All Great Masters and Prophets teach and Preach according to Region ( Desha ), Time ( Kala ) and the people who are receiving the message ( Patra ). The theme and purpose of all Swami’s speeches in the Indian Subcontinent, From Columbo to Almora were to rouse the Hindus who were wallowing in self Pity due to Years of domination and subjugation, first by the Muslims and then later by the British. He spoke, not only about the greatness of Hinduism but also about the depth of depravity that Hindus have fallen due to their ignorance and complacency. The Swami has always spoken against Don’t touchism, caste obsession and Kitchen Religion. He was unsparing in his criticism of the Caste Brahmins for usurping all powers and exploiting the masses.

The Need of the times was that the Hindu Masses had to be instilled with the sense of pride in their cultural and religious heritage and motivate them to unite and work selflessly for Freedom. Swamiji’s success in this endeavor is evident from the fact that he was the ‘moving force‘ behind india’s Freedom Struggle.

To quote from the speeches and writings of Swami Vivekananda, without taking into account the context and intent is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. It is a great travesty that it has become fashionable to project Swami Vivekananda as a mere Hindu Supremacist, a proponent of rigid caste system and a male chauvinist, belittling his achievements and contributions to the Nation.

Whatever the "Secular Liberal Intellectual barkers' association" say & we will always consider Swamiji as one of the finest Spiritual Figures of all time. I treat such commentaries, in the same way in which I treat my nose mucus or my throat sputum to the wash-basin.

>> A Hindu religious leader WILL extol the virtues of Hinduism. It is simple common sense. But our twisted sense of secularism calls it Hindu supremacist

Excellent point.

Moreover, when there is a discussion on that bastard Syed Ahmed Khan, we are preached that icons of yesteryears should not be judged by standards of today. But when it comes to Vivekananda, these rules are conveniently forgotten.

#65/D-150 @DLNarayan - ".... saw the dawn of the present yuga, the Kali Yuga, which will end when there is 100 % adharma and the need arises for dissolution at the end of the Kalpa, a period comprising 4 yugas."

Who knows, Shuddhabrata and Jyothirmaya may go down in history (or purana ?) as the ones who hastened the end of Kaliyuga. May be they are divinely ordained to play that role.

>>And if Hindus and Hinduism can be blasted for one sentence in Upanishad, which most have not read or are unaware of, why should the same standards not apply to Muslims and Islam. I don't recall any sicko standing up and saying that liberal and progressive Hindus of today reject these masochist doctrines.

A Hindu religious leader WILL extol the virtues of Hinduism. It is simple common sense. But our twisted sense of secularism calls it Hindu supremacist! Nobody calls the Pope, or mother Teressa a Christian supremacist. Why do rootless commies who apply these fake standards only to Hindus not call Lennin a commie supremacist?

>> "There is no God but God" is quite consistent with the Hindu concept of one supreme being, Brahma

Ah. The delectable twist.

The statement was "There is NO God but Allah", which was modified by the resident jehadi to "There is no God but God".

I wonder how many Muslims will like if Hindus say there is no god but Brahma.

>> liberal and progressive Muslims of today reject both the supremacist and exclusivist doctrines.

There are a whole lot of non-liberal and non-progressive Muslims too.

And if Hindus and Hinduism can be blasted for one sentence in Upanishad, which most have not read or are unaware of, why should the same standards not apply to Muslims and Islam. I don't recall any sicko standing up and saying that liberal and progressive Hindus of today reject these masochist doctrines.

It is impossible to call whom some call enlightened humans, and others call God, a certain identity. The person who sees God, even if another does not believe in God, would rather hear about God from a believer, than a disbeliever. Also, it seems, the idea of God is more important, than the idea of mere humanity. Today, people who have difficulty believing, are in conflict, not with God. I realised, I am insecure, that those who have difficulty in believing perceptions, want people not to believe in perceptions too. The point is, God is not a perception, and people believe God to be. Naturally, if a person feels insecure about believing in God, because of circumstances, then he finds that he has no differences with other faiths, in their belief. I empathise not with scientists, but the layperson who believes in certain ideas of science. We are in the same age, perhaps, in a vague hypothetical manner, as the age of the wheel. Science is truly an eternal study, but if the study of science is eternal, then the age of the wheel, has not progressed.

>> How is Islam not exclusive? The fundamental tenet is "There is NO God but Allah and Mohammed is His ONLY Prophet".

You have a point, but "There is no God but God" is quite consistent with the Hindu concept of one supreme being, Brahma, and the phrase is, "Muhammed is His Prophet," not "His only Prophet". As I said before, liberal and progressive Muslims of today reject both the supremacist and exclusivist doctrines.

>> It is part of a concerted conspiracy by the secularist anti nationals to denigrate the Bharatiya, and by definition, Hindu heritage.

Saying that Vivekananda was a supremacist and an exclusivist does not denigrate Hinduism. It is an assessment of Vivekananda, not of Hinduism. Moreover Vivekananda himself should not be unduly faulted because after centuries of insults that Hinduism had suffered, he was trying to restore it to its rightful place as one of world's great religions. If in the process he occasionally went overboard and tried to show Hinduism to be superior to other religions, that is an error that leaders of many other religions committed too. Now is the time when all of us should say together "Sarva dharma samabhava".

Here is an example of how the lofty ideals of Hinduism are distorted to give a grotesque shape to those ideas.

"India’s ancestors had the Brahmins as their racial ideal."

Brahmin refers to a class of people of the highest intellectual and moral stature. Literally a Brahmin is someone who has acquired Brahma Gyana or knowledge of Brahman, the Supreme Soul. Such knowledge is acquired by scholarship and not by birth. It is neither racial nor hereditary. How can it be called a RACIAL IDEAL?

"Vivekananda describes this ideal in terms of representing renunciation and spirituality. If a country were to be governed by men of such selflessness and spiritual excellence, no police, laws or even government would be needed in any way. Following this Platonist ideal...."

Excuse me, this is not a Platonist ideal...it is a concept which predated Plato by centuries, if not millennia. It describes a Maharishi, a sage, a renunciate and his predominant quality is Satva.

" In the Satyayuga, there were only Brahmins. Their eventual degeneration led to proliferation of other castes. It was a cycle and there would come a day when everyone would return to these Brahminical origins."

Another distortion to suit the insidious agenda. In the beginning it was the Satya Yuga, the yuga of truth, when all were honest. The Satya Yuga ended when a quarter of the people got corrupted and behaved in an unethical manner. The next yuga, the Treta, started with 25% dishonesty and ended when half the people became corrupted. The next was Dwapara which startedwith 50% dishonesty and ended when the rot affected 75% and saw the dawn of the present yuga, the Kali Yuga, which will end when there is 100 % adharma and the need arises for dissolution at the end of the Kalpa, a period comprising 4 yugas. This is the cycle and then starts a new Kalpa which begins with a clean slate and absolute purity, a new Satya Yuga, which, in course of time will degenerate progressively.

JS gives a casteist spin to the wisdom of our scriptures and tries to present it in a negative manner and tries to "prove" the Swami Vivekananda was a "votary of caste". No condemnation could be harsh enough of this intellectually dishonest and morally degraded cretin.

Contrarian, Sir, there is only one plausible answer to your rhetorical question. It was for telling the conquered race that they worship false gods, that their religion is false. Iconoclasm and proselytisation were the hallmarks of the religion of the new rulers, deeds which very considered to be highly meritorious.

The very first mosque in India was built in Delhi, beside the Qutub Minar. It was formerly a very large Hindu temple complex and was converted into a mosque after demolishing the idols and defacing the sculptures. The mosque was give the name Masjid Quwwat-ul-Islam which means the might of Islam in Arabic. Of course, some Romila Thapar may emerge some day and say that the Hindus themselves were convinced of the inferiority of their religion and demolished the temple and converted it into a mosque. There were, probably, Shuddhabratas and Jyotirmayas even in the 12th century AD.

On the inclusiveness of Ramakrishna. He accepted the concept of Ishta. And his Ishta included any God. What he was seeking was sincerity in effort. He rejected the exclusive claim of anyone. He criticized the Vaishnavas of his day for their exclusive claims also.

But to stretch this into making the point that Ramakrishna accepted everything about every other religion is plainly false. He had his disagreements within certain sects of hinduism as well as with claims of other religions. If that makes him exclusive, so be it. And Vivekananda also becomes exclusive.

DL Narayan >>> shall not waste my time in reading this execrable excreta

Sir, this is all politically motivated. Eventually some of this excreta sticks. Idea is same as before in colonial period and the one preceding it. Don't let Hindus learn the glories of their past and keep them morally bankrupt and divided so they can be enslaved for ever. Our new "secularist" masters are no different. So, the dynasty rules Ok ...

Why do you think mosque were built atop temples? Enough space in India for mosques. No, but they had to be specifically targeted at sites where once a temple stood ... examples are many ...

Pseudo Intellectuals like Jyotirmaya Sharma are feeling insecure about the growing reach of Swami Vivekananda's message and vision. Hence, these below the belt attacks on him using pseudo scholarship. It is unfortunate that Outlook has published such a divisive article which seeks not only to defame Swami Vivekananda but also hurts the religious feelings of millions of admirers of Swami Vivekananda. Please withdraw this article and issue a public apology like The Hindu paper did recently for its dastardly attack on Swami Vivekananda.

Prasanth >>> Finally, why don't we have any problem with the Christian declaring matter-of-factly that salvation is only through Christ or the Muslim, that eternal damnation is the lot of non-Muslims (rightly so, for that is the teaching of their religion), but take recourse to casuistry, quibble over shades of meaning of words, to label a Vivekananda an exclusivist, and worse, a "Hindu supremacist"? Is the suggestion that only meekness, submissiveness, and socio-political invisibility is becoming of a Hindu?

Precisely... this is the kind of brand Secularism Nehruvian style that has been shoved down a Hindus' throat in independent India that keeps him meek and submissive in his own home. The moment he asserts his Hindu identity socio-politically, he becomes communal, exclusive, supremacist, chauvnist, sanghi ...

BTW, what is the definition of inclusiveness? If a person accepts everything everyone says, he really believes in nothing and is totally useless. As in science, a scientific theory which explains all possible combinations really explains nothing.

From where do Vinod Mehta/Krishna Prasad unearth these brainless wonders like Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Debashis Chatterjee and now, Jyotirmaya Sharma? One claims that the Upanishads extol the virtues of rape, another sets out on a Quixotic mission to resuce Bhagavad Gita from Hinduism and now the latest blockhead from the Outlook stable asserts that Swami Vivekananda was a "caste votary" and a "Hindu supremacist".

What unites these three "worthies" is a basic mental inability to understand what Hinduism is and an admirable devotion to bashing the religion of their ancestors. I shall not waste my time in reading this execrable excreta even if Outlook gave it away for free.

' he could now readily pronounce Brahminhood as “the great ideal of India”"

WHich incidentally was the view of Buddha also. Dhammapada contains Buddha's praise for the ideal of Brahminhood and how everyone should strive to achieve it. So what Vivekananda said was nothing new but simply restating what Buddha (and Sankara) had said centuries before.

"He also describes caste as a status achieved or acquired, where individuals having attained the status of learning, wealth or sword worked towards preserving the privileges of that caste. "

The problem in this statement is this-he is confusing varna and jati. The root of the word "varna" means to choose. Whereas jati comes by birth. Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudhra are varnas-not jatis. And as such, one can choose the varna by choosing his way of life.

Vivekananda's point here is this-one must keep the ideal of brahminhood(that is renunciation and service) as the goal and work towards it. He did not ask everyone to give up what they were doing. Keep the ideal in mind and do what you are doing. That way you will be slowly elevated-not in the social sense but in the spiritual sense.

The writer, it is pretty obvious, has no understanding of either Ramakrishna or Vivekananda. Many examples can be given but this takes the cake

"We already know that Ramakrishna had little interest in scriptures, thought nothing of the Vedas, made little distinction between the Vedas and the Vedanta in a formal sense, and found such textual details boring and monotonous."

Every word is untrue. Ramakrishna had a deep interest in scriptures right from childhood. He memorized various verses his father and later his brother's taught him. His favorite past time in child hood was listening to the pandits explaining religious texts and repeating them later. And later, during his sadhana period he himself mentions the time he spent discussing Vedas and Vedanta with various sadhus in his room-while he was suffering from serious dysentry. And later, the Gospel of Ramakrishna mentions many instances of him listening to some religious texts read out by others. And in the initial days when Narendra came, he made him read many Advaita texts in his presence.

So every word is untrue. Ramakrishna's injunctions against religious texts comes in a particular context-he criticized those who read for the sake of reading or to gain fame as a pandit. But to read to understand and develop Bhakti had his full support.

Sharma takes a sentence from Vivekananda and tells us what the "operative part" is, what words to pay attention to and what words to ignore. Is he analyzing verbiage from the Constitution or a judgement of the Hon. SC? Casuistry is no substitute for Insight.

Sharma deserves a response - religious and political.

Religious: Beyond externalities which are only a calling card - for instance, the Christian cross, Jesus, Resurrection - any religion has to address the core questions: (a) What is Man's place in the world in relation to God's? (b) What is Man to do with his life? (c) Is there a Salvation ? (d) Is Salvation the result of Man's merit or God's grace or both? So beyond externalities, all Religions perforce traverse the same territory. It is in this sense, that there is a Universal Religion which finds expressions in different lands, different times and among different men, all of which may be viewed as sects of the Universal Religion. Quibbling over the word sect/religion and thereby impugning Vivekananda's catholicity is sheer casuistry.

Political: If a socio-political consequence of Vivekananda's work is Hindu self-assertion, why take issue with it? After all, large majorities of the so called Hindu society had never tasted political power and their process of their empowerment is bound to be disorderly, chaotic and unaesthetic. Vivekananda's impact on this complex and historical process is only one among many. Vivekananda calling the Brahmins "good and moral" raises Sharma's antennae (looking for ghosts behind curtains??). Evidently, Vivekananda didn't subscribe to the vision of a "casteless" India. So? That Caste/Jati should be annihilated is dangerous radicalism, and I'm extremely suspicious of anyone advocating it (do you even know what you're talking about?)

Finally, why don't we have any problem with the Christian declaring matter-of-factly that salvation is only through Christ or the Muslim, that eternal damnation is the lot of non-Muslims (rightly so, for that is the teaching of their religion), but take recourse to casuistry, quibble over shades of meaning of words, to label a Vivekananda an exclusivist, and worse, a "Hindu supremacist"? Is the suggestion that only meekness, submissiveness, and socio-political invisibility is becoming of a Hindu?

"I've not come to convert anyone to Hinduism. I want the Christian to become a better Christian, a Presbytarian to become a better Presbytarian..." etc.

The residents of Bharat lived in harmony in their respective division (by caste or sect), heirarchically for hundreds of years. "Karma" and "Fatalistic Philosophy" ensured inter communal harmony and stability. The concept of religious conversion never did exist as the society was essentially governed by Vedic rituals/ practices. At the higher level (one may term it as elite/ intellectual level) there were clash of philosophical thoughts.

1. The Swami had a strange experience in a small American town, where he was confronted by a number of college boys who had been living there on a ranch as cowboys. They heard him describe the power of concentration, through which a man could become completely oblivious of the outside world. So they decided to put him to test and invited him to lecture to them. A wooden tub was placed, with bottom up, to serve as a platform. The Swami commenced his address and soon appeared to be lost in his subject. Suddenly shots were fired in his direction, and bullets went whizzing past his ears. But the Swami continued his lecture as though nothing was happening. When he had finished, the young men flocked about him and congratulated him as a good fellow.

2.

Ramakrishna had attained samadhi, he had experienced the truth. He lacked the ability to communicate this to others. He was in search of some one who could serve as his medium and take his message to the world at large. He had hardly gone through two grades at an elementary Bengali School. This simple villager had a great treasure, but did not know how to share it with the world. He was not articluate. So when Vivekananda came to him, he decided to use him as his instrument.

Vivekananda once siad to him that he would like to experience samadhi. Ramakrishna explained to him the techniques and guided him tthrough the discipline. He was such a great Master that his very presence could trigger samadhi in Vivekananda, his very touch sent the disciple into Bliss. When he had his first experince, Ramakrishna told him, “This will be your last samadhi. I'll keep the key to this experience with me, and give it back to you 3 days before your death”.

Vivekananda was shocked and cried “Pray, please don't deprive me of samadhi”. But the Master said firmly “You have great work to do. You will be my instrument and messenger to the world. If you go into samadhi, you'll not be able to come back, and the great work will suffer. What I have known has to reach to every nook and corner of the earth. Don't be selfish. Give up your attachment, don't hanker after samadhi. You have to build a huge temple sheltering millions of thirsty seekers from all over the world. That is why I am taking away the key to your samadhi.”

The key remained with Ramakrishna and given to Vivekananda 3 days before his death, as promised. It is through Vivekananda the world came to know about Ramakrishna. But Vivekananda had to sacrifice much. Until 3 days before his death, he was in constant suffering and deprivation.

1. Show the red rag to the Hindu Nationalist(HN). It works every time. It results in controversy, traffic, clicks and advertiser attention. Thus the 3Ms (Macaulayite, Marxist, Missionary) achieve their success. (The 4th M is not prominent in the power-houses of the English Media, and IMHO has a tradition-oriented Asian mind-set).
2. Incite HNs. Just as the spanish bull-fighter provokes the bull to charge, steps aside, and throws swords into its back, the 3Ms aim to bleed, exhaust and kill the HN spirit.
3. Attack the ancestors. This is a typical Indian trait in a fight. One begins with a person, then goes on to abuse the mother and father, and then their parents, and establish that the origins and blood of the target itself is evil, and worthy of elimination. This is done in a metaphorical manner by the Jyothirmoy Sharmas of the world today. Attacking Vivekananda and Ramakrishna fits into this pattern. Of course, they have western fellow-travellers like Jeffrey Kripal, who have shown the way.
4. The Indian Sepoy mentality. These intellectual soldiers work for the west today and perform their duties to get laurels, intellectual epaluettes, career lapels, chairs and tenures in their Masters' circles, mainly in the US but also UK. The more they attract hostile HN attention, the more they will smile.
5. Modern multi-level marketing and branding. A book needs to be bought, a magazine needs to be sold, and an ideology needs to be reinforced. So, not only is money being made, fame is being established, multinational university Dons are being attracted, Indian Govt. Sponsorships can be obtained, and eventually one can rub shoulders at India International Centre, Jaipur Literary Festival, Oxford Book Fair, Harvard South Asia Studies, Polynesian Island festivals etc ;-). Well-thought ou and holistic.
6. High-level mental satisfaction is obtained, and one's stock goes up among brown and white peers (like Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock, Sunil Khilnani, Aru Roy, Meera Nanda, Ramachandra Guha, U.R. Anathamurthy....). Look man, I can demolish Vivekananda, am I great or am I great?

Ramki >>> India was plural, diverse, multicultural and tolerant 1000s of years before Nehru and will remain so. But J.Nehru pretended to make India democracy while he cut the very roots of the tree he nourished …

This is the saddest irony of our age. China is a communist country but its policies are driven by Confucianism. In India, we are digging a “progressive” hole to bury our ancient wisdom and knowledge. Nehru learnt India thru his beady western eyes and a socialist utopia. He had a charisma and was lucky that no one in Congress could challenge him. Those who did had to go.

Ramki >> Even in relatively advanced USA/UK/Europe in late 19th century, urban poverty, filth , squalor, domestic violence, street gang violence, forced prostitution, slums, exploitation of child labour, class based distinction, discrimination of people based on colour, forced labour, disenfranchisement of people based on race and gender etc were normal facts of life …

Well nothing is unquestionable on this earth and keeping in view that tradition alive, we have someone taking on Swami Vivekananda, a true Vedantist and humanist. This can only be attributed to the greatness of Hinduism which allows such undiluted liberty. That in a country where Ambedkar cannot be questioned and icons of other religions are above any discussion.

In my opinion this is the right time to begin a healthy discussion on Hinduism and Indian culture rather than criticising the present cituation. The Indians irespective of their present beleifs has to accept their common cultural beleifs and obligations to the fellow human beings and societyas a whole. Hinduism was and is the only common thing we had in the past and that is the only common thing we have for the future. The invation by the Moguls, Europeans, French, has taken the undue advantage of our peaceful "Athithi devo bhava" culture and spread their beleifs and corrupted our serene culture.

Swamy Vivekananda's works were always empowering people irespective of their beleifs, that too in the 19th century. Look at the pathetic condition prevail in India now, think of uniting the Hindus instead of deviding them again in the name of secularism.

A supremascist would be intolerant - but Swami Vivekananda said in a speech in the US "I've not come to convert anyone to Hinduism. I want the Christian to become a better Christian, a Presbytarian to become a better Presbytarian..." etc. But he was also vocal about the strength of the vedas which had sustained numerous assaults and setbacks over the years and still emerged strong. I dont think this makes him a "supremascist". At a point in history when Indians were reeling under colonialism and foreign assualts, he gave them something to take pride in and use to build their spiritual lives. I think thats the reason he is so revered. I've never come across anything which says he preached divisiveness.

Ramki i agree but i still says that idea of a deiverse plural Secular democratic India as percieved by our ancestros in 1947 was no wrong only there approcah was wrong. had they followed Gandhi who was a devout Hindu yet believe in Plusralism and tolearnce to other faiths .This was not displayed in the Policy makers of Nehruvian times they were hell bent on demonising our ancient past.

India had been a Multiclututal and Tolerant society from the time of arrival of Jews and later Zoroastrains after there persecution in there native countries.I agree Jyotirmaya sharma have mischieviously argued his case because of his hate of Narendera Modi and his brand of Politics.

However it is also true that Sangh is trying to make vivekanand the icon of Hindutva from very past, and after Modi there attempt in this direction ahve moved very fast.Modi is wrong so does People like Jyotiramay Sharma and there supporter like Outlook.

I would like to quote here from Vivekanand himself and one can check if he wasa Hindu supremacist or not .

If there is ever to be a universal religion, it must be one which will have no location in place or time ; which will be infinite like the God it will preach, and whose sun will shine upon the followers of Krishna and Christ, on saint and sinners alike ; which will not be Brahmnic or Buddhistic, Christian or Mohammedan, but the sun total of all these, and still have infinite space for development ; which in its catholicity will embrace in infinite arms, and find a place for, every human being from the lowest grovelling savage, not far removed from the brute, to the highest man lowering by the virtues of his head and heart almost above humanity, making society stand in awe of him and doubt his human nature. It will be a religion which will have no place for persecution or intolerance in its policy, which will recognise devinity in every man and woman, and whose whole scope, whose whole force, will be centred in aiding humanity to realise its own true, devine nature."
(Chicago Address 19. 9. 1893)

As we have hate peddling leftist rabble rousers speak some crap about Swami Vivekananda, saner minds should reflect on these facts:

* Thinkers and Seers are products of the times they lived and the socieites they observed..

* Swami Vivekananda lived in late 19th century and

* In late 19th century, people lived just till their 40s even in relatively advanced USA/UK and lived just to mid 20s in India.

* There was lot of theories going around in name of science, including some interpretations of darwinist findings which were justifying the race th eory and supremacy of people of some race and colour

* The implications of industrial revolution and urbanisation was not fully understood since it was ongoing process and

* Even in relatively advanced USA/UK/Europe in late 19th century, urban poverty, filth , squalour, domestic violence, street gang violence, forced prostitution, slums, exploitation of child labour, class based distinction, discrimination of people based on colour, forced labour, disenfranchisement of people based on race and gender etc were normal facts of life in the relatively developed USA/UK/Europe and

* Slavery was just then ended officially in Brazil but the people of colour were treated as 3rd class citizens in the enlightened west and it was considered as norm and

* Lastly discrimination based on religion and age old prejudice was the norm, Jews(and Romas) in europe, catholics in USA lived in ghettos and were used to mistreatment and third class status

* Except US and France, most nations were theocratic and secularism was unknown and in europe or us, immigration laws were framed to exclude people on basis of race and religion. Judiciary too approved such laws and reinforced such prejudices.

This is the perspective of life in late 19th century and given this, it is unfair to use present day standards of political correctness and impose on the great thinkers in that period.

Which brings another question - do the present day politically correct leftist writers of OUTLOOK conform to present day standards of progressivism and inclusiveness?

The entire magazine that is OUTLOOK is rampantly made into propaganda piece of one party, and its dynasty family even though the dynasty has ruined the nation from within..

Priya Madhavan >> Jyotirmaya Sharma's specialty is ‘political science’.This is not mentioned anywhere in Outlook - neither in the book interview section or on the section on the Book excerpt.

My friend, please understand that when you are employed to peddle paid news in favour of your employer's employer, your qualifications do not matter. All that you need is good articulation skills ,which JS has in plenty.

Anwaar >> The fact that religions can co-exist as co-equals never dawned on them

Religions can co exist as equals only in a society/nation which accepts the principle of tolerance and diversity and secularism to its heart.

Thus in India, we have coexistence as equals. But in Islamic Theocracy of pakistan there is no coexistence, we have only a monochrome vision of one religion as being part of statecraft and rest are just refugees and prisoners who are expected to practice their faith out of fear (of the theocracy) and out of obligation (to be showing gratitude to the talibani fascists for allowing them to worship gods other than one in Koran).

RV Subramaniam >> As I understand from these excerpts, It seems Vivekanada was more interested in extolling Hinduism as it exists within the framewoprk of Manusmruti and not as a reformer like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and others

You are ready to believe anything peddled in Outlook about a great Hindu spiritual leader whom you have never met right? If tomorrow Outlook says that your parents are nazis and killed a few jews, will you believe that also?

Ram >> OUTLOOK magazine has Published AN ADEVRTORILA in form of Book review. if they tried same stunt with Islam or Christianity riots woud occur all over India!!!!!

Leave aside the riots part.. Rajan Raheja is a smart billionaire and he knows that he needs the complete support of Non hindus in all his businesses and so he wont rub them in wrong way - and for hindoos, everyone k nows that no one cares a damn about them and they are meant to be punching bags, as always !

Anil >> Post-Independence Nehru and his colleagues had dreamt of an Idea about India , that is a nation with Democratic, Plural, Diverse, Tolerant, Multi-Cultural values.

COMPLETELY WRONG. Nehru was a Lucky, Pampered, Westernised Feudal lord, who had little understanding of India and was not a democrat but a pampered but intelligent feudal.

His career was pushed by his daddy who as two time president of Indian national congress and his wealth ensured high education, contacts with high society and visiblity of J.Nehru. And J.nehru was lucky to impress mahatma gandhi who felt a englishman like indian is best bet to rule independent India. And J. nehru was even more lucky that all his rivals, from Bose to Patel to Ambedkar all died early while J.Nehru used his long stint at Delhi to create a mythical cult around him and promote his autocratic daughter to the top post.

India was plural, diverse, multicultural and tolerant 1000s of years before Nehru and will remain so. But J.Nehru pretended to make India democracy while he cut the very roots of the tree he nourished by making his daughter as his successor surreptitiously. India today is only in name democracy, for all practical purposes, except BJP and Left parties,all parties in India are family outfits, or caste outfits or outfits run to cater to ego of some smart/semi smart/stupid leaders.

Post-Independence Nehru and his colleagues had dreamt of an Idea about India , that is a nation with Democratic, Plural, Diverse, Tolerant, Multi-Cultural values. And there was and is nothing wrong in this idea. They foresee imminent danger in the name of Right wing Radicalism in the name of Hindu Fundamentalism especially after the death of Gandhi.

However the approach which they use to contain the right wing movement was utterly Flawed. They not only demonised Vedic Culture ,Hindu Icons, Indian spirit of spiritualism but also they made us believe that India as a nation was gift to us courtesy of Britishers,other wise we were a divided house of 548 princely States.This very flawed approach haster lagiven the rise of Ugly Right wing movement in the name of Sangh Fascism and later in the face of Saffron terrorism.However there is still a lobby of those mindset , one which is displayed in the writings of Jyotirmaya sharma about Vivekanand.

This Mind-set will again have a negative effect in future, if these people will continue to target Hindu Culture, icons, Spiritualism in the name of “Idea of India “ the day is not very far when India would be ruled by someone like Narendra Modi.So carry on Guys if your aim is to see Modi as the future PM of India.

OUTLOOK magazine has Published AN ADEVRTORILA in form of Book review. if they tried same stunt with Islam or Christianity riots woud occur all over India!!!!! Secular Congress would have banned the book by NOW! MArxist writing on Hinduism what is new ...................!!! False Propaganda to tarnish Swami Vivekananda all because Narendra Modi is using him as icon ........how pathetic and juvenile levels can you descend Mr.Jyotirmaya Sharma?

This is not mentioned anywhere in Outlook - neither in the book interview section or on the section on the Book excerpt.

What an asinine cover story, picture and headline! This writer's (Jyotirmaya Sharma's) political background should be presented upfront before asking the readers to read about this article. That changes the whole perspective about this book.

Vivekananda talked about brahminhood & shudrahood as being qualities existing within the self. He gave many examples to show how someone is engaging in brahminhood and the same for shudrahood.
This is a cheap hatchet job to get work in an evangelical sponsored university in america, maybe?
Or a political game because everything that Modi is linked with is taboo.
Or both.

Since this write-up, as it claims is an excerpt from a book “Cosmic Love and Human Empathy” by one Jyotirmaya Sharma subtitled Swami Vivekanand's "Restatement of Religion" one would probably give Mr Sharma the benefit of doubt. But if this book is all what is represented by this article here, then I would say shame on VM, the Outlook Editor, to “distinguish” this book with any intellectual and scholarly credibility colouring it with his journalistic chicanery and utter dishonesty (ref: the pasted photos) to one great man that post-medieval India had the honour to produce during the period when her great civilizational achievements in almost every sector of human endeavour esp. in matters ethereal and spiritual were forgotten even by its trustees and legatees, the Hindus.

Hindus subdued and trampled by nearly half a millennia of Islamic sword (and conversions) and morally bankrupt by the Macaulayism of a colonizing world power, and its denigration of India by imposing a mischievous AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) on its history, needed an Avatar, which came to them in the guise of what an earlier Churchill would have called, a half naked fakir – RamKrishna Paramhansa. A Vaishnav Bengali Brahman with his Upnishadic Advaits teachings, RamKrishna wore similar white cloth like Muslims on Haj, said prayers to Allah 5 times a day and experimented with Christianity.

Vivekanand with RamKrishna as his guru was eventually convinced of Advaita (non-duality) system of thought – identity of Self (atman) with the Whole (brahman) – which he saw as the essence of Hinduism, similar to revelations in Semitic religions. He revitalised Hinduism within and outside India. It is his legacy that the Yoga, Transcendental Meditation and other forms of Indian spiritual self-improvement are now enthusiastically practised all over the world. His followers include eminent personalities including Max Muller, Nikola Tesla, Prof. Helmholtz and Lord Kelvin – too many to mention here. He travelled widely all over India to all her corners and it is in Kanyakumari where Indian ocean washes her feet, he saw his motherland in chains and crystallised a nationalistic ideal.

Charles Freer Andrews, an English priest and a close friend and associate of Mahatma Gandhi wrote "The Swami's intrepid patriotism gave a new colour to the national movement throughout India. More than any other single individual of that period Vivekananda had made his contribution to the new awakening of India.”

In the words of Rajgopalachari Vivekanand “saved Hinduism, saved India”. For MK Gandhi he increased his “love for his country thousand fold and influenced India’s independence movement.” Tagore told French Noble Laureate Rolland - if you want to know India, study Vivekananda. In him everything is positive and nothing negative”. His writings inspired freedom fighters like Subhas Bose, Aurobindo, Tilak, Bagha Jatin, Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh etc. Jamshedji Tata admired the Swami for establishing Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore.

I CONDEMN THIS WITE-UP AND THE BOOK THAT IT COMES FROM IN STRONGEST TERMS. ABOVE ALL I CONDEMN VM FOR PUBLISHING SOMETHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE THIS IS JUST TO HELP HIS MENTORS IN THEIR DAMN SICKULAR POLITICS … NOTHING ELSE …

OR ELSE, WHY PASTE THOSE PHOTOS WITH TRISHULS, ARTI AT RISHIKESH AND SWAMI’S MUKHAUTA WITH THAT OF MODI. OK, LET MODI FLAUNT HIS ADMIRATION FOR THE SWAMI, BUT THEN WHAT PROMPTS YOU TO PASTE IT ALONG WITH THIS ABOMINABLE WRITE-UP WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE TO MODI AT ALL ….

The whole tone of this article is so offensive. The most pathetic part of this article, is use of photos of a hindu activist with trishul and one with masks of Modi and Vivekanand. It is an opinion article on one of the greatest minds of India. It is a part of the efforts to discredit Vivekanand primarily as Modi has called him his mentor. There is nothing wrong about this article if Outlook also publishes a counterpoint. But outlook goes beyond that. He publishes the article with cover page calling Vivekanand Hindu Supremacist. So far outlook has been very subtle in showing its bias. They have made it official now,

This article is simply atrocious and a classical example of some peanut sized brain people trying to assess such a great personality, as they say little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Factually incorrect statements, if given a chance i can dissect this article line by line, but then i dont want to talk to fools who have chosen being paid handsomely to write such a venom spewing article... dear author, believe me, u know nothing about him and the motherland will curse u for ages to come. its an unpardonable act in the garb of freedom of speech

In response to Mr. Barua, people believe in God, because of no compulsion, but because they have no choice to choose, and there seems to be no other consideration. Mr. Barua must really be in sentiment and notice of this, but how he did bring his views to our attention, is a consideration. I don't really believe that we, believe in God for any reason, but for the reason that God might exist for us, and we can completely agree, that God is not proved. I cannot say, that love of the human for what he seems to represent, makes me believe in God. Every human would either believe, or not believe, and there would be no conflict, between believers. I don't know, if I am the only disbeliever, in my nation.

I cannot believe Outlook has stooped to such a low level and published a factually incorrect (and potentially disparaging towards Hindus) cover story about Swami Vivekananda!! I think the editors here probably are influenced by evangelical Christian lobby or Wahabis and just to want to insult Hindus.

The most important questions here is what was Swami Vivekananda’s opinion bout Caste and other religions. Here is the answer- below is an interview of Swami Vivekananda published by "The Hindu" back in February 6, 1897. Swami answers both the questions very clearly- without any ambiguity.

Extracts
-------------------What are your views, Swamiji, in regard to the relation of caste to rituals?
Caste is continually changing, rituals are continually changing — so are forms. It is the substance, the principle that does not change. It is in the Vedas that we have to study our religion. With the exception of the Vedas, every book must change. The authority of the Vedas is for all time to come; the authority of every one of our other books is for the time being.
I do not propose any levelling of castes. Caste is a very good thing. Caste is the plan we want to follow. What caste really is, not one in a million understands. There is no country in the world without caste. In India, from caste we reach to the point where there is no caste. Caste is based throughout on that principle. The plan in India is to make everybody Brahmana, the Brahmana being the ideal of humanity. If you read the history of India you will find that attempts have always been made to raise the lower classes. Many are the classes that have been raised. Many more will follow till the whole will become Brahmana. That is the plan. We have only to raise them without bringing down anybody. And this has mostly to be done by the Brahmanas themselves...------------------------

Here Swami says Caste is a good thing- this may sound bit out-of-date in 2012- but read on- Swami clearly states that his idea is to make every single Hindu a “Brahmin” by education. Clearly Swami’s definition of Brahmin is someone who is educated and enlightened in vedic thoughts. Swami’s Brahmins are not someone borne in to Brahmin caste!! This is true to ancient Vedic traditions where a Fisherman becomes Veda Vyasa (went on to write Mahabharatha) and a tribal hunter became Rishi Valmiki (wrote Ramayana)..... So Swami’s ideas are very progressive and calling him a castist is not only offensive but factually incorrect too.
Then Swami’s approach towards Islam and Christianity- Swami clearly states that he believes in the superiority of Vedic thought (most Hindus –except may be Vinod Mehtas and Rajdeep Sardesais do believe Hindu, Vedic theology is superior) and Vivekananda is after all a Hindu Sanyasi!! It is but natural that he will propagate superiority of ancient vedic wisdom. But unlike his contemporary (and current) Christian and Muslim evangelicals he does not show intolerance towards other religions.
Finally I am sickened to see such low level and blatantly insulting (towards Hindus) articles being published in Outlook about one of the sacred Sanyasis and spiritual leader of Hinduism.

Without going into the contradictions of Veda, Geeta, or the inherent contradictions of Hinduism for that matter, there could be no two opinion that Swami Vivekananda was an escapist...he took 'sanyas' when he failed to find any worthwhile livelihood ...deserted his 4 little brothes alongwith the widowed mother was struggling their way through abject bankruptcy...unlike an elder son,he didnt stand beside the family,rather,took a cowardly way...in his early twenties he spewed venom against Brahmins, as well as against superstitious Hindu beliefs and rituals, only to compromise later with the same corrupt Brahmins...their fraudulent practices and their patrons like Maharaja of Khetri in lieu of some monthly dole outs for his family...there's a letter from him to the Maharaja to this effect that if he continue to send money to his family he would compromise and hold the banner of Hindutva much of which he despised...also, in his book he opposed the movement against the notorious 'Satidaho' (widow burning) system...this is an example of a mistaken hero....he was a hero by chance,not by worth...and it is time to critically review his preachings of 'Karmayoga' for the poor working class, and 'Bhaktiyoga' for the affluent class...by the way,his youngest brother,bhupendranath dutta had a great contribution to indian freedom movement...he was perhaps a hundred times greater than vivekananda.but ironically,he always remained an underdog.his philosophy of armed struggle was far ahead than vivekananda's escapism...Rammohan and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (ocean of knowledge) were much great thinker and reformer than Vivekananda, but the Bongs(especially the womenfolk despite his pioneering reform for emancipation of Bengal's womenfolk) hardly pay any homage to them... cause they had the guts to revolt against the atrocities of Kulin Brahmins, and the prejudices of Hindu Dharma ...Vidyasagar in fact once refused to meet Ramakrishna during one of latters visit to his official residence as Principal of Sanskrit college

Never mind that a majority of Islam countries will not allow Hindu temples built in their countries and those that do, reserve the right to demolish them at a whim. Put that in context of a Hindu majority country in which a great Hindu philosopher gets a bad name from another Hindu who accuses him of calling Islam a “sect”. My, my, my – what a blasphemy!

Is it any wonder we were slaves for so many centuries? Some of these Macaulay Indians suffer from Stockholm Syndrome in which the oppressed becomes an admirer of the oppressor and is grateful for any scraps thrown at him.

1.Any 'belief'' based grouping which denies others grace of the 'almighty' as being 'the grouping' having the privelege of the grace vis a vis any thought which 'believes' in the 'grace' as being available to all without discrimination-will have to be considered a sect. What else can we call it?

Is it Vivekanand's fault that he found such Universal non-denial of grace only in Hinduism?

May I ask you to name any other such belief? If you can give some good answer I shall agree to Vivekanand being 'Hindu Supremacist'.

2. Vivekanand asked the 'Shudra' jati (being the natural instinctive nature of the individual- in his frame of reference) to collectively uplift, which he did not ask other 'jatis' to do.

To understand this let us understand the meaning of each 'varna's-the varna's describe a 'guna' or a 'capability' being their in an individual. Power, Intellect and Money have been considered as the defining gunas. We know that these gunas are 'currencies of power'

Shudra Varna in this definition means 'not having any guna' or not having any 'currency of power'. In such a situation the only 'currency of power' they can have is the combined might of all' or what we have otherwise known as 'unionism' or 'communism'.

This currency of power is not going to create 'guna' for the current shudra- but will definitely prevent his 'suppression'.

'........... it is Vivekananda, who considered only Hinduism to be worthy of the epithet ‘religion’ and thought of Islam and Christianity to be merely sects. ........"

Much before the advent of Islam or Christianity into India, the residents of Bharat continent were a multiplicity of sects (or castes). The tiers of population forming a pyramid learnt to live together bound by Karma resulting into belief in Fatalism. with heirarchy of castes in place, undisturbed. Once in a way some castes moved up and down while not disturbing the tiers in the bottom of the pyramid. This kept the society, at large, in peace, This aspect does facilitate expansion of the Definition of Hindu to be all inclusive. Vivekananda was a pioneer Global Thinker.

The really spiritual people are broad everywhere. Their love forces them to be so. Those to whom religion is a trade are forced to become narrow and mischievous by their introduction into religion of the competitive, fighting, and selfish methods of the world.

From USA, 1894. Letter to Dharmapala. Complete Works of Swami Vivekanada, 5. 60.

The funny thing about this article is the photo of the book clearly shows the title to be "COSMIC LOVE AND HUMAN APATHY ".

But the title below the book is "COSMIC LOVE AND HUMAN EMPATHY ".

I suspect some right wing fan of Vivekananda at Outlook office is staging sabotage. hahahaa.

Oh my, Vivekananda cultists are everywhere..... But what the hell editors are doing? are they all sleeping while the title of the book is merrily mis-stated.? Don't they even check how the article is being published in web?

JSharma might have already got a confirmed ticket to go to one of the universities in USA. No doubt he is another "Jeffrey J. Kripal" (author of Kali's Child). JSharma and JKripal are NOT the fools as they knew the purpose of their writings (gain awards, money, etc.). But those who encourage these authors (such as American Academy of Religion) are the real FOOLS having spent money for and giving fame to these authors. They never realize that these books will have NO influence on the world and they endup paying and giving fame to these authors.

Jyotitmouy Sharma is a Prof of Political Science as mentioned in the web site. This book will land him in a divnity or political science school in an university in USA. Just wait and warch. His stars are rising . This prediction will come true. One Prof from USA told me that the modern academic is all strategy and working towards where the lobbies are strong in the media and in terms of funding. So there you go. JSharma is right on the way, with a one way ticket to Universties in USA.

Anybody who reads the teaching of the realized folks will understand that Vivenkananda was a casteist and Hindu supremacist who's teaching had only a little resemblance to the reaching of the greats like Ramakrishana. He was upholder of the Manusmriti and vedas which is far far away from the teaching of the realized souls. its good that some indians like the author are looking critically at this work and are realizing this truth finally. The only difference between RSS/ Savarkars version and that of Vivekananda is the play of words. They are all essentially same..

Their is a concerted campaign being run by the alliance of jihadis, McCaulay's children, and Marxist fascists to spew venom against Hindus and Bharat. Outlook provides a plateform to these warriors bereft of head and bereft of heart only totally certain in their rotten beliefs whose central tenet is the blind hatred for the Hindu.

The author is a professor in Central university at Hyderabad, a big name among Hinduism hatters! A man who has devoted all his writting abusing all Hindu icons.............his bile is speewed in anti Hindu publications like Outlook & Hindu............may go bless him with wisdom at least in the near future! Miracles can always happen!